"Problematic Apologetics": Bokovoy Reviews Callister's "A Case for the Book of Mormon".

[cinepro]

GA Tad Callister recently released a book titled "A Case for the Book of Mormon" wherein he tries to make a defensive case for the book.  Part of the book was recently published at LDS Living:

7 Ways the Bible Prophesies of the Book of Mormon

David Bokovoy, a biblical scholar who is familiar to many of us, has taken to his Facebook page to share his thoughts.  I'll post them here for those who are Facebook averse. 

After reading his comments, it occurs to me that LDS leaders might be interpreting certain things in the Bible in way that is biased towards LDS teachings and might not be supported by a more objective reading of the text and context...

 

Quote

Recently, LDS General Authority Tad Callister published an article through LDS Living that adapts segments from his new publication, "A Case for the Book of Mormon." Callister’s article provides examples of biblical prophecy that he suggests are fulfilled through the Book of Mormon. It’s really one of the most problematic apologetic pieces I have ever encountered. I’ll probably dissect each of the examples, but I wanted to begin with this one.

Callister writes:

"Isaiah spoke of a people who, like the people of Jerusalem (see Isaiah 29:2), would have an enemy 'camp against' them, 'lay siege against [them] with a mount' and 'raise forts against [them]' (Isaiah 29:3). Who are those other people that are likened to those destroyed in Jerusalem?”

Then quoting the Book of Mormon itself, Callister provides the answer: the "them" in the text are the Book of Mormon Nephites. This is an absolute distortion of the text that can not be sustained. Here is the Isaianic section from the King James Version Callister uses:

Isaiah 29:1-3:

“Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel. And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.”

As is well known, the word Ariel is a poetic name for Jerusalem. But in Hebrew, the term also means “altar hearth.” Callister recognizes the fact that this constitutes a judgment speech against Jerusalem. And for Callister, the prophetic connection with the BofM is established in verse two which refers to a people “like Ariel” who will experience a siege similar to the one Jerusalem endured. Thus, according to Elder Callister, this reference to a people “like Ariel/Jerusalem” refers to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

This, however, is an impossible reading of the text. In reality, the entire pericope concerns Jerusalem. A more literal translation of the Hebrew would read:

“Then I will afflict Ariel, and there will be moaning and lamentation, and she will become to me like an Ariel.”

The statement does not refer to a city or a people that will be like Ariel/Jerusalem. It refers to the fact that Ariel/Jerusalem will become like an "ariel" meaning, an “altar hearth.” Other translations read "like a hearth of God," or even the emphatic, "like my Ariel indeed." It's a word play on the poetic term for Jerusalem/Zion.

Yet I'm afraid the case against Callister's reading is even worse than that. The earliest Hebrew manuscript for this text is IQIsa, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. Instead of reading like the King James version, “it shall be,” which Callister takes as an allusion to the Nephite civilization, the DSS Isaiah reads “and YOU shall be.” The second person feminine form “you” clarifies that the statement refers back to the city of Jerusalem referenced at the beginning of the section.

There is simply no way to sustain Elder Callister's reading that the text refers to a people who will be destroyed like Ariel/Jerusalem. And we can do the same thing with every single example he provides of the Book of Mormon fulfilling biblical prophecy. It doesn't. That's not how prophecy works in the Bible. From my forthcoming contribution to a book that addresses the topic:

"Biblical prophets addressed very specific social, political, and economic situations pertaining to their own time. Modern readers, therefore, cannot properly understand prophetic messages without taking into consideration the historical context of each source. The biblical view that prophets were primarily forthtellers rather than foretellers stands in contrast to what most Latter-day Saints assume. For many, "prophet" brings to mind an individual with the ability to look into the far distant future and predict very specific events. . ."

"In reality, biblical prophetic texts are not predictions of the LDS movement. The biblical prophets were not fortune-tellers. Instead, they were highly perceptive political and social critics concerned with everyday problems that affected their own time and community. They prophesied to their own people, the king, or even the priestly leaders of the religious cult, declaring that if they acted in ways that negatively affected Israelite and Judean societies terrible things would occur."

https://www.facebook.com/david.bokovoy/posts/10217200005925655

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by cinepro

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

GA Tad Callister recently released a book titled "A Case for the Book of Mormon" wherein he tries to make a defensive case for the book.  Part of the book was recently published at LDS Living:

7 Ways the Bible Prophesies of the Book of Mormon

David Bokovoy, a biblical scholar who is familiar to many of us, has taken to his Facebook page to share his thoughts.  I'll post them here for those who are Facebook averse. 

After reading his comments, it occurs to me that LDS leaders might be interpreting certain things in the Bible in way that is biased towards LDS teachings and might not be supported by a more objective reading of the text and context...

 

 

I get what he's saying but I don't think that this can be sustained, "The biblical prophets were not fortune-tellers. Instead, they were highly perceptive political and social critics concerned with everyday problems that affected their own time and community. They prophesied to their own people, the king, or even the priestly leaders of the religious cult, declaring that if they acted in ways that negatively affected Israelite and Judean societies terrible things would occur."

Biblical prophets predicted things that happened in the Bible like the 7 lean years and 7 fat years, the fall of jerusalem and the redemption it, even Jesus told the two disciples on the road "all things concerning himself" and he used Moses and "all the prophets". I think Bokovoy is reading his perspective into it, maybe Elder Callister is as well. 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Biblical prophets predicted things that happened in the Bible like the 7 lean years and 7 fat years, the fall of jerusalem and the redemption it, even Jesus told the two disciples on the road "all things concerning himself" and he used Moses and "all the prophets". I think Bokovoy is reading his perspective into it, maybe Elder Callister is as well. 

Perhaps we all read into it what we want to see, that is, after all the nature of scripture. But when it comes to discerning what the original intent was of the passages quoted, I'll take what Dr. Bokovoy says, hands down, over what Elder Callister says.

 

I also like what Albert Switzer had to say about a similar subject. Parenthesis mine.

Quote

Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; (or any Biblical prophet)that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found it own reflection in Jesus: (or the Biblical prophets) each individual created Him in accordance with is own character. There is no historical task which so revels a man's true self as the writings of a Life of Jesus. 

I don't believe the Biblical prophets had any awareness of the Nephites or were making any predictions about them, and I believe Elder Callister is just trying to project his own views into a Biblical story that knows nothing about Book of Mormon peoples

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Perhaps we all read into it what we want to see, that is, after all the nature of scripture. But when it comes to discerning what the original intent was of the passages quoted, I'll take what Dr. Bokovoy says, hands down, over what Elder Callister says.

 

I also like what Albert Switzer had to say about a similar subject. Parenthesis mine.

I don't believe the Biblical prophets had any awareness of the Nephites or were making any predictions about them, and I believe Elder Callister is just trying to project his own views into a Biblical story that knows nothing about Book of Mormon peoples

trying to get into the minds of people who lived over 2500 years ago is a tough challenge but I applaud those who know for certain what they were thinking 

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

trying to get into the minds of people who lived over 2500 years ago is a tough challenge but I applaud those who know for certain what they were thinking 

I imagine Bokovoy now takes the position that Matthew's work is likewise impossibly tainted by first century CE Christian ignorance.

[Storm Rider]

"In reality, biblical prophetic texts are not predictions of the LDS movement. The biblical prophets were not fortune-tellers. Instead, they were highly perceptive political and social critics concerned with everyday problems that affected their own time and community. They prophesied to their own people, the king, or even the priestly leaders of the religious cult, declaring that if they acted in ways that negatively affected Israelite and Judean societies terrible things would occur."

Yeah, no. I can see a secular projection of this on scripture, but I think any simpleton's reading of the text will find numerous examples of prophets who actually foretold - they prophesied of future events. This is where the rub is; it sounded like a pretty logical review of Calister's writings and then goes off the deep end and pulls a concept out of thin air. That completely destroys the validity of the criticism.

Why the push for the ignorant conclusion? It makes me think of a story I heard many times growing up, "Satan will tell you 99 truths if he can get you to believe in one lie."  

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

GA Tad Callister recently released a book titled "A Case for the Book of Mormon" wherein he tries to make a defensive case for the book.  Part of the book was recently published at LDS Living:

..................

Quote

"In reality, biblical prophetic texts are not predictions of the LDS movement. The biblical prophets were not fortune-tellers. Instead, they were highly perceptive political and social critics concerned with everyday problems that affected their own time and community.

 

This case of dueling book excerpts actually demonstrates considerable overreach by both men.   If Elder Callister had been well-trained in a Protestant, Jewish, or Roman Catholic seminary, he might have been able to deliver something more than his impressions of Isaiah, and whatever else in the Bible.  David Bokovoy (PhD Brandeis), on the other hand, has the benefit of a fine, secular Jewish education in Bible, and he expresses very well the standard Jewish belief that the prophets only spoke au courant.

As Jewish scholars now admit, long before the beginning of Jewish Christianity, the Essenes were reading about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah as an eschatological Messiah(s), as we can see from the Qumran scrolls.[1]  Indeed, Job, the "Babylonian Theodicy," and Ludlul bel nemeqi likewise deal with the suffering of the Righteous One, all of which may be related to the figure of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, New Testament,[2] and Book of Mormon.

Thus, Nephi and Jacob each read Scripture as applicable to their people in their own time, just as the Essenes and rabbinic Jews tended to do (TB Pesaḥim 10:5).  The first and most important motif to be applied in the Book of Mormon was the full-scale Exodus motif,[3] which has so often been primary for Jews as well.  Second, the eschatological motifs in Isaiah and Micah.  Third, the Vineyard motif (Midrash Sifre Deut 32:9 §312, Lev Rabba 1 (113a).[4]

“For I did liken all scripture unto us” (1 Ne 19:23-24; 2 Ne 11:2,8, Jacob 5:3).

 1QSa/1Q28a 2:11-12, which has God “fathering, begetting” (Hebrew holid) the Messiah of Israel: "when [God] has fa[th]ered the Messiah" ∥1 Ne 10:17, 11:7,18,21, 13:40, II Ne 25:12-19, 26:3,9, Jacob 4:5,11, Alma 5:27,48-50, 7:11-13, 9:26-27, 12:33-34, 13:5-9; Mormon 5:14; cf. 2 Ne 17:14 (Isa 7:14), 19:6 (Isa 9:6).

4Q541 (4QAaronA/4QAhA) (24 [25] frags dated to ca 100 B.C.; a second copy in 3 frags is 4QTestLevi^c) frag 9 "He will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of his [pe]ople. His word is like a word of heaven, and his teaching is in accordance with the will of God. His eternal sun will shine, and his light will be kindled in all the corners of the earth, and it will shine on the darkness... They will speak many words against him, and they will invent many [lie]s and fictions against him and speak shameful things about him. Evil will overthrow his generation..."; frag 24 "Do [not] grieve for [him]...God will set many things right...many revealed things...Ex­amine and seek and know what the dove (Jonah) sought and do not afflict the weak by wasting or hanging [crucifixion].... [Let] not the nail approach him. So you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers a proven foundation.... You will see and rejoice in the eternal light, and you will not be an enemy"[5]; cf. Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 (4th Suffering Servant poem), 1 Corinthians 15:13; J. Starcky and E. Puech consider this to feature a Suffering Servant or Suffering Messiah theme.

 4Q246 (4QpsDan Aa, 4QSon of God) Aramaic I "[He] shall be great upon the earth.... and all shall serve [him]...the [g]reat..," II "and by his name shall he be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High" ∥Luke 1:31-32,35.[6] 

---

[1] Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000); Michael Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

[2] A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient  Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, rev. ed., 272-273, citing W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 70-89.

[3] George S. Tate, “The Typology of the Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon,” in N. E. Lambert, ed., Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1981):245-262; S. Kent Brown, “The Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies, 30/3 (Summer 1990):111-126; Terrence Szink, “To a Land of Promise,” in K. P. Jackson, ed., Studies in Scripture, vol. 7: 1 Nephi to Alma 29 (SLC: Deseret, 1987), 60-72; Szink, “Nephi and the Exodus,” in J. L. Sorenson and M. J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1991), 39-42; cf. Sara Riley, “‘Even as Moses Did’: The Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18,” paper delivered at FairMormon Conference, Aug 2, 2018, Provo, Utah.

[4] H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I:874-875.

[5] J. J. Collins, "The Suffering Servant at Qumran?" Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):25-27,63.

[6] G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed. (Penguin, 1987), 275; 4th ed. ( 121, 332); and in H. Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y.: Random House, 1992), 203-204 (J. J. Collins in BAR, Mar/Apr 1990; J. J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian 'Son of God' Among the Dead Sea Scrolls," Bible Review, 9/3 [June 1993]:34-38,57.  Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[churchistrue]

I would love to hear someone from FairMormon address this:

 

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/06/13/bad-book-of-mormon-apologetics/

Last year, FairMormon had a big win for their organization when LDS General Authority Kevin Pearson came to speak at their conference and endorsed them. I consider myself an LDS Apologist. I was moved by Elder Pearson’s words at that conference as he encouraged all LDS with the ability to act on their own to publicly defend the Church. I felt a spiritual prompting to do more than I have been in my efforts to provide intellectual answers and paradigms for those in faith crisis.

In his talk, he identified three organizations that the Church in some degree officially endorses. He thanked those organizations and encouraged others to support them and to direct questioners to those resources. FairMormon, the journal Mormon Interpeter, and BOM Central.

 

 

With Elder Pearson’s endorsement comes a level of responsibility. We can’t provide ridiculously bad arguments that critics slice up and mock us for it. We can’t go for the cheap, easy wins that might appeal to a mass, uneducated audience when the people that are actually in faith crisis seeking to know the right answers read both sides and have to admit the critics are right. We can’t come across so bad that we seem dishonest and break trust with honest seekers.

 

 

Tad Callister’s new book A Case for the Book of Mormon is making a splash. Brother Callister is General Authority Emeritus. I don’t want to pick on Brother Callister. He’s not a scholar. He’s writing to a popular audience. He shouldn’t be evaluated the same way as scholars who are at the forefront of these discussions. He’s the grandson of Legrand Richards, author of Marvelous Work and a Wonder. That book, was for my generation something very comparable to Brother Callister’s book on the apostasy and this one on the Book of Mormon for this day. They are works that are quasi-intellectual, inspiring for LDS, good for introducing one generally to some issues that you can follow up through other sources to get more up-to-date scholarship. But they are not aware of current scholarship both pro-LDS and critical, full of prooftexting scripture out of context, using parellelomania concepts, and generally just not good Apologetics.

 

 

Brother Callister seems not aware of Brant Gardner’s work on translation and retaining Hebraisms. He’s not aware of the work of BYU professors Nick Frederick and Thomas Wayment that have identified numerous allusions to the KJV New Testament. He’s unaware of Richard Bushman’s concessions to modern Protestant material in the Book of Mormon. He gives no regard for traditional Biblical scholarship in the way he’s prooftexting Bible verses that he claims reference the Book of Mormon. Most LDS scholars, even those on the conservative side, won’t stand with him on that. He’s not aware of Blake Ostler’s Expansion Model. He’s not aware of Skousen-Carmack’s work acknowledging modern elements that must have come through a loose translation.  He’s using Smoot’s imperative for a historical BOM, but wielding it in an extremely dangerous and hopelessly naive way, claiming none of the book came through the mind of Joseph.

If a regular guy without credentials wrote this book, FairMormon and Book of Mormon Central would ignore it, mock it, or even blast it for being weak on scholarship, similar to how Book of Mormon Central recently blasted the FIRM Foundation Heartlander Group for the same kinds of problems.

 

But for some reason, FairMormon has latched onto this book. Promoting it on their website, doing podcasts and blog interviews, sharing it on Facebook, and also invited Brother Callister to speak at the FairMormon Conference. Last year Elder Pearson spoke at FairMormon and this year Craig Christensen appears to be on the schedule in the role as General Authority speaker. I think that’s great. They’re not scholars, but they come in official capacity from the Church, and it’s great to hear the church’s perspective on the Apologetics landscape. But Callister is not appearing in that context. He is presenting actual apologetic material.

 

[churchistrue]

Another point which I didn't bring up in the blog post but plan to in a future post. Among the faithful informed (or Apologists--I want to make sure no one thinks I'm using that as a pejorative), I'm not sure there's a single one of us that haven't blasted church curriculum for the blatant prooftexting. I'm pretty confident in private company, nearly every single one here would have some harsh criticism for those lousy lessons. In that FairMormon interview, Callister basically brags that he's personally responsible for this. I don't expect FairMormon to publicly call out a former general authority and disrespect him for this, but I certainly don't expect them to congratulate him and put him at the head of the table.

 

[churchistrue]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

I imagine Bokovoy now takes the position that Matthew's work is likewise impossibly tainted by first century CE Christian ignorance.

Here's the difference. I think this is an important distinction. 

Matthew and Abinadi, for example, are reinterpreting or reimagining Isaiah. Repurposing scripture into a higher meaning or a more pressing relevance. They are not doing what Callister is doing, presenting a case like a lawyer, proving something by claiming this is what Isaiah meant originally. 

Or maybe they are. In which case, they are all wrong. But Matthew and Abinadi didn't have the benefit of modern scholarship, so they are more easily forgiven. 

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by churchistrue

[USU78]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Here's the difference. I think this is an important distinction. 

Matthew and Abinadi, for example, are reinterpreting or reimagining Isaiah. Repurposing scripture into a higher meaning or a more pressing relevance. They are not doing what Callister is doing, presenting a case like a lawyer, proving something by claiming this is what Isaiah meant originally. 

Or maybe they are. In which case, they are all wrong. But Matthew and Abinadi didn't have the benefit of modern scholarship, so they are more easily forgiven. 

 

Do you somehow imagine that Callister's work is unique or original?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, churchistrue said:

............................

In his talk, he identified three organizations that the Church in some degree officially endorses. He thanked those organizations and encouraged others to support them and to direct questioners to those resources. FairMormon, the journal Mormon Interpeter, and BOM Central.

With Elder Pearson’s endorsement comes a level of responsibility. ........................

Exactly.  But what does that mean in practice?  Put me in charge, and I would send each called G.A. to an M.A. program in theology (or the like) at a good school (prepaid) such as Harvard or Yale Divinity School, or the GraduateTheological Union at Berkeley, or to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (he could live at the BYU Jerusalem Center).  Men without at least a B.A. could not even be called.  What did Joseph Smith do?  He hired a Jewish scholar and had him teach Hebrew to the Brethren in the School of the Prophets.

Quote

Tad Callister’s new book A Case for the Book of Mormon is making a splash. Brother Callister is General Authority Emeritus.................. generally just not good Apologetics.

Brother Callister seems not aware of ................. hopelessly naive way, .......................

If a regular guy without credentials wrote this book, FairMormon and Book of Mormon Central would ignore it, mock it, or even blast it for being weak on scholarship, similar to how Book of Mormon Central recently blasted the FIRM Foundation Heartlander Group for the same kinds of problems.

But for some reason, FairMormon has latched onto this book. Promoting it on their website, doing podcasts and blog interviews, sharing it on Facebook, and also invited Brother Callister to speak at the FairMormon Conference. ..........Callister is not appearing in that context. He is presenting actual apologetic material.

Any one of a number of scholars would have been quite happy to read and critique Elder Callister's new book.  The mystery is, Why didn't he avail himself of that option?  It is possible that he is so unaware of the beartraps which awaited him that he simply did not realize how wrong he could be.  This is a direct consequence of the lack of serious historical and theological training for our general authorities.  They do not know what they don't know, and therefore cannot be humble about it.  Worse, his publisher was not even aware of the possibility that the book needed to be read by a professional.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[churchistrue]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Do you somehow imagine that Callister's work is unique or original?

No, of course not. Why?

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

No, of course not. Why?

Neither was Matthew.

[churchistrue]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Neither was Matthew.

Of course. Prooftexting started as soon as scripture did. I'm acknowledging there is a certain tradition and validity to it. Not sure where you're going with this.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

GA Tad Callister recently released a book titled "A Case for the Book of Mormon" wherein he tries to make a defensive case for the book.  Part of the book was recently published at LDS Living:

7 Ways the Bible Prophesies of the Book of Mormon

David Bokovoy, a biblical scholar who is familiar to many of us, has taken to his Facebook page to share his thoughts.  I'll post them here for those who are Facebook averse. 

After reading his comments, it occurs to me that LDS leaders might be interpreting certain things in the Bible in way that is biased towards LDS teachings and might not be supported by a more objective reading of the text and context...

I think it is helpful when our scholars and general authorities freely exchange ideas and discuss these matters (whether publicly or privately), and even better when they respectfully allow each other to respectfully correct the other in their respective areas of expertise.

I don't think Church leaders and scholars are the only ones affected by bias, which I think has more to bear on authentic scholarship than on authentic testimony, which all saints strive for. Discipline in scholarly matters promotes objectivity, and discipline in spiritual matters promotes subjectivity, and it takes a good deal of divine grace in my opinion to integrate both.

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

General authorities as trained gospel theologians.....

It has a certain je ne sais quoi.....

Nibley is rolling over in his grave.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[USU78]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Of course. Prooftexting started as soon as scripture did. I'm acknowledging there is a certain tradition and validity to it. Not sure where you're going with this.

We're getting there. Whom do we trust to get it right? Why?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

General authorities as trained gospel theologians.....

It has a certain je ne sais quoi.....

Nibley is rolling over in his grave.

Scripture is in the heart of writer, and is the seed and soil from which the reader's own revelations can grow.

Interpretation, exegesis, hermeneutics, scholarship are the philosophies of men.

Revelation begits revelation, not philosophical interpretation 

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin anyway? What did God do as a boy? You think you're really going to discover that through erudite discussion?

Galileo knew the difference while the Cardinal did not.

Edited June 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

Put 5 Biblical Scholars in a room and ask for an interpretation of a scripture. Unless the scripture is " Jesus wept " you will probably get at least 5 opinions. And even then...

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Put 5 Biblical Scholars in a room and ask for an interpretation of a scripture. Unless the scripture is " Jesus wept " you will probably get at least 5 opinions. And even then...

At least one will say there was no such person we know as Jesus.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Scripture is in the heart of writer, and is the seed and soil from which the reader's own revelations can grow.

Interpretation, exegesis, hermeneutics, scholarship are the philosophies of men.

Revelation begits revelation, not philosophical interpretation 

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin anyway? What did God do as a boy? You think you're really going to discover that through erudite discussion?

Galileo knew the difference while the Cardinal did not.

It’s easy to see how this could evolve into a Great Apostacy.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  But what does that mean in practice?  Put me in charge, and I would send each called G.A. to an M.A. program in theology (or the like) at a good school (prepaid) such as Harvard or Yale Divinity School, or the GraduateTheological Union at Berkeley, or to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (he could live at the BYU Jerusalem Center).  Men without at least a B.A. could not even be called.  What did Joseph Smith do?  He hired a Jewish scholar and had him teach Hebrew to the Brethren in the School of the Prophets.

Any one of a number of scholars would have been quite happy to read and critique Elder Callister's new book.  The mystery is, Why didn't he avail himself of that option?  It is possible that he is so unaware of the beartraps which awaited him that he simply did not realize how wrong he could be.  This is a direct consequence of the lack of serious historical and theological training for our general authorities.  They do not know what they don't know, and therefore cannot be humble about it.  Worse, his publisher was not even aware of the possibility that the book needed to be read by a professional.

Maybe the prophets should stick to what they do best....calling us to repentance?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Put 5 Biblical Scholars in a room and ask for an interpretation of a scripture. Unless the scripture is " Jesus wept " you will probably get at least 5 opinions. And even then...

Put 50 Biblical scholars in a room and you would get the same 5 opinions with 40 of them agreeing on one.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe the prophets should stick to what they do best....calling us to repentance?

Tell it to Joe Smith.  He might have thought that knowing the Hebrew and Greek words for "repentance" had value, if only so that one could understand the Scriptures. Does being a prophet divest one of his intellect.  God gave us brains for a reason:  He wants us to use them.