107 replies to this topic

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I have been pondering this ever since it was announced that Bradford had noted that he wanted to move in a more secular direction and be more academic. Perhaps this is just his way of having what appears to be a more legitimate reason for changing the old guard, I honestly don't know or care.
My quick thoughts on this is that it simply cannot be done. Look, the students are already discouraged from studying and getting Ph.d's in Old Testament because those who do apostatize. Now why does THAT happen?! Interesting no? The Church Education System does NOT allow the use of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek in its lessons, etc.
Anyway, look I am not trying to elevate myself, because I honestly am a next to nobody, I promise, but I have been reading the secular for quite some time, and I just do not see that possibility occurring in the church owned BYU or Maxwell Institute. It simply can't happen. I am not slamming anyone, I am not trying to come across as criticizing, but let me give a short list just off the top of my head why I don't believe the secular approach will work for BYU. Now it works in other universities, true enough, but not at BYU.

SECULAR IDEAS AT COMPLETE ODDS WITH THE CHURCH I HAVE READ ON
1. Jesus didn't even exist.
2. If Jesus existed he in no wise was divine either during his life nor after the resurrection because it did not occur.
3. Jesus never started a church
4. Nothing in the Old Testament is real or accurate history, it is all re-written form later times replacing what actually happened with the political and religious agenda of Jews as they were returning from Babylon around 550 B.C.
5. None of the Gospels in the New Testament are history. There is no factual history in them
6. Jesus was not regarded as divine by any of the Gospel writers. The words they use and names they called him such as "Son of Man" and "Son of God" were NOT divinity titles indicating his status.
7. the Gospels are stories invented and embellished for political purposes. They are nothing but religious propaganda.
8. Paul is at complete odds with what the Gospels portrayed Jesus and his Gospel  was.
9. Jesus was in no wise a Christian or a Mormon, but a full fledged Jew who remained loyal to that religion throughout his life.
10. The New Testament manuscript evidence demonstrates that the later manuscripts in the New Testament (further in the chronology, which is wrong as well) began to be concerned with a church because Jesus' eschatalogical return as the Son of God failed. The second coming did not occur, and therefore they had to do damage control to save Jesus some face

These are just 10 of innumerable themes that the "SECULAR" world deals with in the scriptures that THEY accept. They don't give a flying rip about Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and even when very darn EXCELLENT Mormon historians write SERIOUS history about Mormonism (Bushman "Rough Stone Rolling") the scholars think it's a waste of time, and half the Mormons get mad because they have never heard these things about Joseph Smith and the early church in Mormonism, and so they are upset.
From my point of view, the secular will never be allowed to be done correct or accurately. The world cares not a flip about testimonies or faith promoting fluff to increase Mormon spirituality. If we begin to go secular, we do it THEIR way or get crucified on the cross of serious historical review and analysis. The Maxwell Institute will simply get shredded for any credibility.
And and all comments welcome.

[volgadon]

Quote

The Church Education System does NOT allow the use of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek in its lessons, etc.

Does it really?

[volgadon]

Quote

SECULAR IDEAS AT COMPLETE ODDS WITH THE CHURCH I HAVE READ ON

These are fairly radical ideas, most of which are considered fringe-scholarship, so may not represent the range of movement within a secular approach.

Edited by volgadon, 25 June 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

These are fairly radical ideas, most of which are considered fringe-scholarship, so may not represent the range of movement within a secular approach.

Perhaps that is so, there are several quite good Biblical scholars who have shown these ideas are in the realm of serious research......I do agree that there is a spectrum involved here.....

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Kerry,

All of the ideas you posted in your list of ten are definitely espoused by various groups. But therein lays the tricky part: several are completely at odds even within that list of ten. You have some saying Christ doesn't exist, but then you have atheist Bart Ehrman saying he absolutely did exist and to say otherwise is nonsense, but he was really about XYZ. And so on and so forth.

It is incorrect to simply say "Secular" as a homogenous group. They are more varied in secular studies than there are types of Mormons! The main thing is that secular studies are very aggressive for biblical studies. It is all about tossing new ideas to the wall and seeing if they stick. And how do they determine if the idea, or at least one tiny part sticks? They go back and forth, debating, sometimes insulting, for years and years. Of course, any attempt to say anything is miraculous is often met with an eye roll, but that is easy enough to work with.

Also, CES absolutely does allow Hebrew, Greek, etc. It's up to the teacher and it should not be the focus unless the lesson for the day is directly applicable. Ie, I teach about what the word "perfect" means in Hebrew and Greek. No one in CES or Church has ever once complained.

[volgadon]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 25 June 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Perhaps that is so, there are several quite good Biblical scholars who have shown these ideas are in the realm of serious research......I do agree that there is a spectrum involved here.....

Spectrum, very good word.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Oh, and it's true that any religious standpoint that involves anything approaching the actual divine will never be fully accepted. The best that can be done is that from an academic standpoint the logic and data is peer reviewed and logically based on the text and evidence, regardless of if the journal or peer group beleives in actual miracles.

[volgadon]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 25 June 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Oh, and it's true that any religious standpoint that involves anything approaching the actual divine will never be fully accepted. The best that can be done is that from an academic standpoint the logic and data is peer reviewed and logically based on the text and evidence, regardless of if the journal or peer group beleives in actual miracles.

It is possible, indeed, even desirable, to take religious ideas seriously. Doesn't mean that one has to embrace the ideas of truth.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

volgadon, on 25 June 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

It is possible, indeed, even desirable, to take religious ideas seriously. Doesn't mean that one has to embrace the ideas of truth.

It's even more vital and critically important to take the criticisms of religious assumptions seriously and explore the full ramifications of the logical, applicability, culture, etc. of whatever scripture one is studying. It is not nearly as important to believe than to understand with full disclosure of all background information, different approaches, etc. There is no singular one and true correct way to read and understand the Bible or else one is in danger of apostatizing and is wrong. There are myriads of interpretations that make better sense of all the evidence than stances the church takes. We simply do not have the last word on things anymore than any religion does. But it's next to impossible to get this into the heads of we Mormons. We are truly myopic in much when it comes to the Bible. It doesn't have to be this way, it's just the way that has been chosen, and with the internet and the scholarly methods and tools made available in the last few decades, we simply cannot continue being so simplistic and naive about the Bible, Jesus, Paul, etc. If the Maxwell Institute wants to improve our understanding and wisdom about the scriptures, they are going to have to cross this bridge of giving realistic and serious attention to alternative ways of understanding the Biblical meaning besides just the standard Mormon view. We are simply not the only possible game in town, even though we love to pretend we are. Our LDS scholarship compared to the serious Bible scholars seriously lacks, as can easily be seen by a simple comparison of anything our LDS scholars have written to any of the Anchor Bible volumes....... we are nowhere near critical and careful exegetical studies yet. Our is still the fluff of building up faith in a picture that we hope matches Mormonism. Call it what you want, but that isn't scholarship, it never has been, and it never will be. I am not decrying Mormonism, I am saying we can improve and we have a lot to offer......IF we would be ALLOWED to.

[calmoriah]

I do not see how the secular angle can occur sufficiently enough to make a difference without allowing for certain things:

1) a review process outside of the university so that nonLDS don't automatically assume that the scholarship is faith directed
2) allowing critical to LDS viewpoints equal access (look at any Mormon Studies journal/program out there and see if there would be difficulties with some of those being presented at BYU)
3) the administration has the standard last I heard that each class must involve some faith promoting aspect, include this standard in the MI vision and I don't see it being taken seriously by secularists...if the science programs are still having problems with teaching evolution....
4) BYU isn't a research school (so says my husband, he may be wrong..I would be interested to find out if so, but I heard that it can be quite a struggle to get any significant funding out there for significant research and religious studies seems hardly the area to start a change in)


Are there examples there of serious and accepted secular journals produced by a faith community?  How do they deal with balancing faith and secular study?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

calmoriah, on 25 June 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

I do not see how the secular angle can occur sufficiently enough to make a difference without allowing for certain things:

1) a review process outside of the university so that nonLDS don't automatically assume that the scholarship is faith directed
2) allowing critical to LDS viewpoints equal access (look at any Mormon Studies journal/program out there and see if there would be difficulties with some of those being presented at BYU)
3) the administration has the standard last I heard that each class must involve some faith promoting aspect, include this standard in the MI vision and I don't see it being taken seriously by secularists...if the science programs are still having problems with teaching evolution....
4) BYU isn't a research school (so says my husband, he may be wrong..I would be interested to find out if so, but I heard that it can be quite a struggle to get any significant funding out there for significant research and religious studies seems hardly the area to start a change in)


Are there examples there of serious and accepted secular journals produced by a faith community?  How do they deal with balancing faith and secular study?

I am honestly not sure either Cal......oh if only we could make BYU Studies seriously scholarly like the Journal of BIblical Literature! Now THAT is just CLASS SCHOLARSHIP. And we cold be that good! We really COULD have that kind of powerful analysis, integrated systematic discussion of all different possibilities, etc., and do serious classy scholarship on the Bible......but being BYU, the brethren will have to agree first...... I just don't see how it will occur is all. faith is more important than knowledge here in the church now. I know Joseph said a man is saved no faster than he can gain knowledge, but now it seems that is being whittled down to simply listen, believe, and have faith. Nothing wrong with having faith......everything wrong with not coupling it with real knowledge. With real tested knowledge. With real analyzed knowledge. Will full disclosure of all possible knowledge.

[calmoriah]

Quote

the brethren will have to agree first

And let's not forget those who think they know what the brethren want even better than the brethren themselves....

[Kerry A. Shirts]

calmoriah, on 25 June 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

And let's not forget those who think they know what the brethren want even better than the brethren themselves....

I seriously really really REALLY flipping BAD hope I have only heard a FALSE RUMOR, but I have heard that now even the Joseph Smith Papers project is going to be edited and censored after all. That not all of Joseph's writings are going to be allowed in it. Will we NEVER GET IT?!? I hope and I will greatly rejoice if this rumor is proven wrong. But if that happens, as the censoring of that very famous world class artist from the 1800's painting that was changed in the Ensign for whatever asinine reason just recently (WHY do they feel they have that right, just paint your own art!) then I am simply going to scream bloody murder at our stupidity and censorship. I cannot continue defending stupidity like that. It has been announced that the full disclosure of all of the Prophet's writings are coming into print, and if any of the BYU scholar find a way to stop this and edit something out, there is simply no way I can trust them again. It must be full and honest, PERIOD. Oh how I can rant eh? Sorry, don't mean to........ but this is my point also about the real scholarship and secular studies. It just has to be done right, not how it has been done the last 50 years, Jack Welch's editorship handling of BYU Studies has been a good breath of fresh air this last decade however actually. He really has TRIED to make it more impressive with high quality.......

[Greg Kofford Books]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 25 June 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

I have been pondering this ever since it was announced that Bradford had noted that he wanted to move in a more secular direction and be more academic.

Where did Bradford note "that he wanted to move in a more secular direction"?

[blackstrap]

If the MI goes more secular then it will just join the rest of the rodents quarreling over the crumbs beneath the table of feasting that is the gospel. As was stated in the OP,years can be spent discussing(contending) over the interpretation of a single verse,or word,for that matter. what a waste of resources and intellect when there are so many truly pressing needs world wide.Every university should require its profs to get out of the ivory tower every few years and enter the trenches of real life as the vast majority finds it.     Rant over.

[Valentinus]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 25 June 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

atheist Bart Ehrman

Ehrman is not atheist but a self described 'happy agnostic'. Unless he has updated his status and I haven't checked in on him...

[Kerry A. Shirts]

blackstrap, on 25 June 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

If the MI goes more secular then it will just join the rest of the rodents quarreling over the crumbs beneath the table of feasting that is the gospel. As was stated in the OP,years can be spent discussing(contending) over the interpretation of a single verse,or word,for that matter. what a waste of resources and intellect when there are so many truly pressing needs world wide.Every university should require its profs to get out of the ivory tower every few years and enter the trenches of real life as the vast majority finds it. Rant over.

And a good rant it is! I actually do think the professors of universities travel around the world and various areas during their summers off, at least I know both Bill Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson do.......
And, your thought on the scriptures is interesting. Where do we draw the line at how much time is needed to be spent on them to understand them properly, not as others would have us believe their view, but the scriptures themselves, which mean something different for every single person alive? Jesus said search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life. Well...... that certainly means more than a mere 15 minute stint a week doesn't it? You bring up something interesting. If it is more important to be in real life rather than simply discussing the scriptures, why have any kind of scripture classes or discussions? Get fully into life, and read them on your own...... I am not advocating this, just musing with you for a sec.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Greg Kofford Books, on 25 June 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Where did Bradford note "that he wanted to move in a more secular direction"?

I'll look for it......I know I saw it discussed somewhere......

[Greg Kofford Books]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 25 June 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

I'll look for it......I know I saw it discussed somewhere......

Thanks. Just interested if he said this himself, or if it is just something being attributed to him.

[volgadon]

Greg Kofford Books, on 25 June 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Thanks. Just interested if he said this himself, or if it is just something being attributed to him.

I think it is drawn from the announcement on the NAMI site.