Steven E. Thompson

[Brian 2.0]

quick question...

I've been compiling a bunch of research form various sources and I've never been sure of Stephen E. Thompson's relation to the church in terms of activity, all I know is that at the very least at one point he was active LDS.

Has he made statements regarding his affiliation with the chruch? Is he active LDS now? Was he when he wrote some of his papers?

Just curious. Thanks!

EDIT: It's Stephen with a "ph". Not an "e" like the title of the post states.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Buzzard]

OK, I googled the name. Are you referring to the Lawyer from Houston, the soccer fan from London, the guy from Atlanta arrested for underage sex, or ???? I've never heard of Steven E. Thompson, much less in an LDS setting.

[Robert F. Smith]

quick question...

I've been compiling a bunch of research form various sources and I've never been sure of Steven E. Thompson's relation to the church in terms of activity, all I know is that at the very least at one point he was active LDS.

Has he made statements regarding his affiliation with the chruch? Is he active LDS now? Was he when he wrote some of his papers?

Just curious. Thanks!

Some of your questions are impertinent and beside the point. Stephen E. Thompson (PhD Egyptology, Brown Univ, 1991) should have his scholarship assessed solely on the basis of the its quality, not on the basis of religious affiliation.

See his “Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue, 28/1 (Spring 1995), 143-160. Available online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf .

See his 2011 lecture series at http://www.bassmuseum.org/event/stephen-e-thompson/ .

[Duncan]

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/apr/12/local-attorney-receives-new-lds-church-calling-to-/

there is an AA70 named Stephen E. Thompson and I am hoping he is a believer!

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.naplesnew...ch-calling-to-/

there is an AA70 named Stephen E. Thompson and I am hoping he is a believer!

Yes, and he is in the 6th Quorum of Seventy, but he is not the one were are talking about here.

[Brian 2.0]

Stephen E. Thompson (PhD Egyptology, Brown Univ, 1991) should have his scholarship assessed solely on the basis of the its quality, not on the basis of religious affiliation.

I 100% agree, but I have conversed with some saying, "Well... of course non-LDS egyptologists would say that."

The only way I know how to answer that is to say, "well... these egyptologist actually are LDS." And I don't want to say that, even privately, if for some reason Thompson had publicly stated his disbelief and/or withdrawal form the church.

I too think it's beside the point. But I have found myself talking to some who very much think is the point.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

OK, I googled the name.... I've never heard of Steven E. Thompson, much less in an LDS setting.

My apologies... it's actually Stephen E. Thompson (with a ph)

[crixus]

I had an email conversation with Stephen E. Thompson about ten years ago. At the time he was living in Florida, and from what I heard he is visiting scholar at Brown University where he received his doctorate in Egyptology. He was a very tough critic of Hugh Nibley and one anti-Mormon organization took some comments Thompson had made and posted them online. Stephen said he asked them to remove those remarks, but they refused. His remarks were given in a brief interview after the publication of Charles Larson's publication on the Book of Abraham. He critiqued Nibley's apologetic approach as misleading and deceptive and gave praise to Larson for his efforts to tell it like it is. Stephen stood by his remarks but wanted them removed because it was drawing too much attention to him and his family. He doesn't believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient documents, but he still goes to church for social reasons. At least, that was the case ten years ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

I had an email conversation with Stephen E. Thompson about ten years ago. At the time he was living in Florida, and from what I heard he is visiting scholar at Brown University where he received his doctorate in Egyptology. He was a very tough critic of Hugh Nibley and one anti-Mormon organization took some comments Thompson had made and posted them online. Stephen said he asked them to remove those remarks, but they refused. His remarks were given in a brief interview after the publication of Charles Larson's publication on the Book of Abraham. He critiqued Nibley's apologetic approach as misleading and deceptive and gave praise to Larson for his efforts to tell it like it is. Stephen stood by his remarks but wanted them removed because it was drawing too much attention to him and his family. He doesn't believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient documents, but he still goes to church for social reasons. At least, that was the case ten years ago.

That is hearsay. Perhaps you could pony up the email itself and allow us to judge his words for ourselves.

[Brian 2.0]

That is hearsay. Perhaps you could pony up the email itself and allow us to judge his words for ourselves.

It is hearsay, but I guess I was practically asking for hearsay... so I don't fault him.

Crixus, the quotes you refer to are part of the reason I asked the question. They are definitely posted on sites unfriendly to the church, so I wanted to try and find confirmation for those quotes.

These were the quotes I saw which got me thinking on this:

Thompson:

"It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

Thompson

"in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that."

I can't provide the link to the websites because I guess those sites are blocked from linking on this board, but a google search of a phrase or two will turn it up.

[phaedrus ut]

That is hearsay. Perhaps you could pony up the email itself and allow us to judge his words for ourselves.

It's a pretty accurate reflection of what I've heard from Thompson over the years. Here is something about Thompson in the "not attacking not negative" classic FARMS style from William Hamblin.

The Latest Straw Man - William J. Hamblin

Although not a contributor to New Approaches to the Book of Mormon,¹ Stephen E. Thompson is nonetheless an active partisan of the view that the Book of Mormon is nineteenth-century frontier fiction. Thompson's most revealing previous essay is "Balancing Acts."² In it he explicitly denies the virgin birth of Christ, seriously doubts the resurrection (in what way, then, is Jesus the Son of God?),³ and rejects not only the historicity of all of Joseph's ancient scriptures, but also of Joseph's First Vision and the visitations of Moroni. It should thus come as no surprise that Thompson describes New Approaches to the Book of Mormon as "a piece of generally solid scholarship which contributes to a better understanding of the nature and origin of this book of scripture [the Book of Mormon]," which uses "methodological rigor."⁴ On the other hand, the FARMS response in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon⁵ is, he asserts, "seriously flawed," and filled with "dross and bile."

Phaedrus

Edited June 19, 2013 by phaedrus ut

[Calm]

the not attacking not negative classic FARMS style

What is so irresistible about making that comment that you feel you must do so even though it has nothing to do with the actual subject matter?

A rather interesting addition considering what you were responding to: "allow us to judge his words for ourselves".

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[phaedrus ut]

What is so irresistible about making that comment that you feel you must do so even though it has nothing to do with the actual subject matter?

A rather interesting addition considering what you were responding to: "allow us to judge his words for ourselves".

It's been a while since I've read this article and even though I was expecting it I was surprised once again just how mean spirited many of these articles are. Remember that Thompson is not only a member of the church but he has also written for BYU and FARMS in the past. Hamblin apparently decided that since Thompson's beliefs in the church are different from his own that he should be subject some ridicule.

Yes I sarcastically called the FARMS piece "not attacking not negative" because despite all the denials it is obviously so. Yes the comment doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter but I suppose I meant it to prepare the reader for another classic FARMS tactic of attack the messenger not the message.

[Robert F. Smith]

It's a pretty accurate reflection of what I've heard from Thompson over the years. Here is something about Thompson in the "not attacking not negative" classic FARMS style from William Hamblin.

Phaedrus

In the real world of scholarship, Phaedrus, there is little mercy for poor quality, and everyone gives as good as they get. Accurate portrayal of poor scholarship is not usually an exercise in being nice, and teachers do no favors to students if they do social grading and mislead the student into thinking he is doing just fine. Bill Hamblin is certainly frank and open about it. As he says in the article you cite:

I have no objection to partisan reviews; indeed, they generally are the most interesting and useful. But readers should be aware that Thompson is by no means unbiased in this matter. Of course neither am I. The difference is that I admit my biases, while many dissenters either assert that they have no biases or consciously hide their real beliefs and agendas.

I would like to see you present an evenhanded appraisal of the full range of work at Classic FARMS, including the book reviews (which made up only a small part of FARMS' work). FARMS always published a wide range of responsible and peer-reviewed opinions, and they did so in a genial and fair-minded way which you will never find on the anti-Mormon sites. I'd like to see specific examples from you of this horrible FARMS activity which I hear so much about, but never saw when I was at FARMS.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is hearsay, but I guess I was practically asking for hearsay... so I don't fault him.

Crixus, the quotes you refer to are part of the reason I asked the question. They are definitely posted on sites unfriendly to the church, so I wanted to try and find confirmation for those quotes.

These were the quotes I saw which got me thinking on this:

Thompson:

"It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

Thompson

"in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that."

I can't provide the link to the websites because I guess those sites are blocked from linking on this board, but a google search of a phrase or two will turn it up.

One thing which should be a dead giveaway right at the outset is the lack of citation of sources. The anti-Mormon websites make a policy of misquoting and quoting out of context, and of not giving a source (so you can't check for yourself). This constitutes rumormongering at best, and you are right to ask for the sources, a point which Phaedrus misses.

[phaedrus ut]

In the real world of scholarship, Phaedrus, there is little mercy for poor quality, and everyone gives as good as they get.

I appreciate you telling me about the real world of scholarship. Apparently I missed out on how real world scholarship works while studying among the best minds in biblical scholarship at my Ivy League Divinity School.

I would like to see you present an evenhanded appraisal of the full range of work at Classic FARMS, including the book reviews (which made up only a small part of FARMS' work). FARMS always published a wide range of responsible and peer-reviewed opinions, and they did so in a genial and fair-minded way which you will never find on the anti-Mormon sites. I'd like to see specific examples from you of this horrible FARMS activity which I hear so much about, but never saw when I was at FARMS.

Lucky for us and anyone following along we can see the examples we need in the context of my links. Hamblin's review was about this article in Dialogue:

"Critical" Book of Mormon Scholarship by Stephen E. Thompson

And again here is Hamblin's review of the review:

The Latest Straw Man by William J. Hamblin

Q.E.D

Phaedrus

Edited June 19, 2013 by phaedrus ut

[crixus]

This is an email Stephen sent to me way back in 2003 when I was asking him how he could possibly reconcile faith with the belief that the BoM was fiction.

There are many people who consider themselves good Christians who consider the Bible to be a work of fiction. That is a position not uncommon among liberal scholarship. Try reading John Shelby Spong, for example. While you may find the position untenable, others do not.

I regret none of my published remarks. As far as I am aware, I wrote the truth. Others may disagree, and they are certainly free to publish articles pointing out my errors. That's the way scholarship works. I will let the readers decide.

The only thing I regret is my comments about Larson's book at the Boston Sunstone. An audience member asked me about the book, and I gave an off the cuff opinion. It was intended to be a backhanded compliment, as I compared it with Nibley's stuff, which I consider to be worthless (mainly because too many of his footnotes do not say what he claims they do. Don't take my word for it; pick one of Nibley's works dealing with ancient studies and check every footnote carefully and see what you discover).

I was shocked when I found out that the IRR was including an excerpt from my comments in a letter they were sending to members along with a copy of the book. I wrote them and asked them to stop, and they refused. The only thing they agreed to do was quote my statement in its entirety, including my reservations about the book. At one point, they had my entire statement on their web site; I don't know if they still do. When the IRR asked me to participate in their BA documentary, I declined, as I have no interest in supporting the cause of fundamentalist Christianity, which in my opinion has no stronger leg to stand on than does traditional Mormonism.

I guess that little dare didn't turn out as well as you planned, huh Robert?

[Robert F. Smith]

I appreciate you telling me about the real world of scholarship. Apparently I missed out on how real world scholarship works while studying among the best minds in biblical scholarship at my Ivy League Divinity School.

Lucky for us and anyone following along we can see the examples we need in the context of my links. Hamblin's review was about this article in Dialogue:

"Critical" Book of Mormon Scholarship by Stephen E. Thompson

And again here is Hamblin's review of the review:

The Latest Straw Man by William J. Hamblin

Q.E.D

Phaedrus

So, Phaedrus, if Bill Hamblin overstepped the bounds of propriety, that gives everyone the right to tar and feather FARMS? QED?

I'm asking for an evenhanded appraisal, and you are not giving me one. Nor are you citing the two evangelical scholars who took a close look at FARMS and never suggested what you are claiming as fact. Just the opposite.

I do not, for example, blame Rob Bowman for the horrible excesses and deliberate lies of the late Walter Martin, and I think that (even though he once worked for Martin) Rob has disavowed the ridiculous claims of Martin. I have known many anti-Mormons who at least conducted themselves as gentlemen and ladies, rather than veritable Satanic fiends from the pit.

There is a legitimate place for hard-core academic criticism (which you no doubt learned at that Ivy League college), but that is not to be confused with deliberate partisan efforts to recklessly besmirch character or to destroy the reputation of opponents. Had Mosser & Owen found anything like this horrible stuff at FARMS, they would certainly have called attention to it. Perhaps you'd do us he service of systematically pointing out what they missed.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

This is an email Stephen sent to me way back in 2003 when I was asking him how he could possibly reconcile faith with the belief that the BoM was fiction.

Quote

There are many people who consider themselves good Christians who consider the Bible to be a work of fiction. That is a position not uncommon among liberal scholarship. Try reading John Shelby Spong, for example. While you may find the position untenable, others do not.

I regret none of my published remarks. As far as I am aware, I wrote the truth. Others may disagree, and they are certainly free to publish articles pointing out my errors. That's the way scholarship works. I will let the readers decide.

The only thing I regret is my comments about Larson's book at the Boston Sunstone. An audience member asked me about the book, and I gave an off the cuff opinion. It was intended to be a backhanded compliment, as I compared it with Nibley's stuff, which I consider to be worthless (mainly because too many of his footnotes do not say what he claims they do. Don't take my word for it; pick one of Nibley's works dealing with ancient studies and check every footnote carefully and see what you discover).

I was shocked when I found out that the IRR was including an excerpt from my comments in a letter they were sending to members along with a copy of the book. I wrote them and asked them to stop, and they refused. The only thing they agreed to do was quote my statement in its entirety, including my reservations about the book. At one point, they had my entire statement on their web site; I don't know if they still do. When the IRR asked me to participate in their BA documentary, I declined, as I have no interest in supporting the cause of fundamentalist Christianity, which in my opinion has no stronger leg to stand on than does traditional Mormonism.

I guess that little dare didn't turn out as well as you planned, huh Robert?

Actually, I very much appreciate you finding that quote, crixus. I have never met or corresponded with this guy and am interested in knowing his authentic opinions. Games of "I dare you" are for little children. Plotting against enemies (real or imagined) is for the insincere.

[gtaggart]

Actually, I very much appreciate you finding that quote, crixus. I have never met or corresponded with this guy and am interested in knowing his authentic opinions. Games of "I dare you" are for little children. Plotting against enemies (real or imagined) is for the insincere.

If that's really Thompson on Nibley, then Thompson is not a honest man. His (and others') footnote challenge has been accepted many times and has been found wanting each time. Shirley Ricks's article on the subject probably being the best example. I'm sooooo tired of people--most often enemies of the Restoration, but sometimes sheep as well--trashing the reputation of this great man.

[phaedrus ut]

So, Phaedrus, if Bill Hamblin overstepped the bounds of propriety, that gives everyone the right to tar and feather FARMS? QED?

It's not a single instance but a running theme I've noticed as a decade long FARMS subscriber. The not just Hamblin's but majority of the reviews in that issue for New Approaches had that tone, same with the Palmers' Insiders View reviews, and all the way up to recent non-hit piece review of John Dehlin that never made it to print. It's just my opinion.

QED is short for the Latin quod erat demonstrandum.

I'm asking for an evenhanded appraisal, and you are not giving me one. Nor are you citing the two evangelical scholars who took a close look at FARMS and never suggested what you are claiming as fact. Just the opposite.

I do not, for example, blame Rob Bowman for the horrible excesses and deliberate lies of the late Walter Martin, and I think that (even though he once worked for Martin) Rob has disavowed the ridiculous claims of Martin. I have known many anti-Mormons who at least conducted themselves as gentlemen and ladies, rather than veritable Satanic fiends from the pit.

There is a legitimate place for hard-core academic criticism (which you no doubt learned at that Ivy League college), but that is not to be confused with deliberate partisan efforts to recklessly besmirch character or to destroy the reputation of opponents. Had Mosser & Owen found anything like this horrible stuff at FARMS, they would certainly have called attention to it. Perhaps you'd do us he service of systematically pointing out what they missed.

Is FARMS still using the Mosser and Owen as some sort of endorsement? I think their "losing the battle" paper must be old enough to serve a mission by now. It's funny you keep asking for a "evenhanded appraisal" of a organization that publishes attacks on their fellow Latter Day Saints like Stephen Thomson review above, the recent review of Rod Meldrum titled Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA , Midgley's Prying into Palmer or "The Fasting Hermit and Very Saint of Ignorance" . These aren't reviews of kooky anti-mormon evangelicals but mean spirited treatment of fellow Saints who fall outside of their orthodoxy.

I'll add another quote about FARMS to the mix. This is from John Hatch's Sunstone presentation Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books:

"After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism's past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work."

Phaedrus

[Robert F. Smith]

It's not a single instance but a running theme I've noticed as a decade long FARMS subscriber. The not just Hamblin's but majority of the reviews in that issue for New Approaches had that tone, same with the Palmers' Insiders View reviews, and all the way up to recent non-hit piece review of John Dehlin that never made it to print. It's just my opinion.

Actually, the Gregory Smith study of John Dehlin's work did finally make it into print (in spite of Dehlin's strenuous effort to quash it), and (surprise surprise) it was not a "hit piece." See http://www.mormonint...mormon-stories/ .

Of course you don't believe in censorship. Neither do I.

So FARMS Review is the only source you have for your judgment on FARMS, of which the Review was a very small part. The "tone" was what did it for you? Were there any false statements, such as one constantly finds in anti-Mormon literature? Were there actual ad hominems? If so, does that constitute the majority of FARMS' activities? Do you even know what FARMS was? I mean, really?

QED is short for the Latin quod erat demonstrandum.

Yeh, I took geometry and Latin in high shcool. I was asking whether you had followed rigorous logic in reaching what appeared to me to be tendentious conclusions.

Is FARMS still using the Mosser and Owen as some sort of endorsement? I think their "losing the battle" paper must be old enough to serve a mission by now.

It isn't that long ago now that those gentlemen took the measure of FARMS by actually reading FARMS literature and assessing it by critical standards. They did not seek to embarrass their own religious preferences, but called the results as they saw them. I have never seen FARMS use their detailed comments as some sort of endorsement. Aside from the fact that FARMS has not existed for years now -- where have you been Phaedrus? My point still stands in any case.

It's funny you keep asking for a "evenhanded appraisal" of a organization that publishes attacks on their fellow Latter Day Saints like Stephen Thomson review above, the recent review of Rod Meldrum titled Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA , Midgley's Prying into Palmer or "The Fasting Hermit and Very Saint of Ignorance" . These aren't reviews of kooky anti-mormon evangelicals but mean spirited treatment of fellow Saints who fall outside of their orthodoxy.

Are you saying that it is mean-spirited to write a factual review of a book? Because it appears that most of those speaking to this issue pretty much take sides based on preconceptions about the Church, not on the factual nature of the articles you cite.

I'll add another quote about FARMS to the mix. This is from John Hatch's Sunstone presentation Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books:

Quote

"After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism's past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work."

Yes, I recall reading Hatch's excerpted comments all those years ago (ca 2004), and I even wrote a letter to him requesting details in support of his allegations. He didn't have anything for me, and would not send me a copy of his paper (I hope he had a good time on the $10 bill I included in my letter). Whenever I ask for specifics, they suddenly seem lacking. What I get are the "tone," or some other amorphous and indefinable concept. Or, as here, someone is upset that fellow Mormons are being targeted. Is that how scholarship proceeds? I really did wonder what "honest scholarly work" Hatch was referring to. Maybe you could tell me.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

If that's really Thompson on Nibley, then Thompson is not a honest man. His (and others') footnote challenge has been accepted many times and has been found wanting each time. Shirley Ricks's article on the subject probably being the best example. I'm sooooo tired of people--most often enemies of the Restoration, but sometimes sheep as well--trashing the reputation of this great man.

I am familiar with the comments of Shirley Ricks and John Gee on the nature of Hugh's footnotes, and they mirror my own extensive experience. I also edited some of Hugh's work and consulted with him personally when I had questions (especially on transcriptions of lectures he had given, for which the notes no longer existed). One constant problem was the lack of experience of many of the students who were checking sources for the Nibley Works project: They learned a lot, but really didn't know their way around a large library - knowledge which it takes years to acquire.

[Calm]

One constant problem was the lack of experience of many of the students who were checking sources for the Nibley Works project: They learned a lot, but really didn't know their way around a large library - knowledge which it takes years to acquire.

So are you saying their conclusions were wrong? In what way?

[Robert F. Smith]

So are you saying their conclusions were wrong? In what way?

You're sure up late . . .

I was simply reporting that the student footnote checkers on the Nibley Works project needed a lot of help and seasoning. They were still wet behind the ears and Nibley's notes were sometimes too exotic for them to find (quite aside from the range of languages involved). Someone needed to clean up after them. It wasn't Nibley who was at fault, but the limitations of the checkers.