Matthew J. Tandy

Lucky for these guys I didn't have a BYU administrator telling me not to publish that article...

Yeah, Dana and every other professor in ANES at BYU taught Documentary Hypothesis, among other possible views. I would even say they were on the cutting edge of challenges and enhancements to it. They really kept up on that stuff. It is, of all tings, the least controversial item to me.

Matt, I was warned against pursuing a degree in Hebrew Bible by BYU Religion instructors, and encouraged instead to pursue a degree in an ancillary subject. I will not address publicly my own experiences with the department, but I would strongly advise LDS students who may have an interest in teaching at BYU to take this advice very seriously.

When I was in the ANES program, I was not discouraged from Hebrew Bible studies as a matter of employment at BYU, I was discouraged as a matter of employment anywhere. The jobs in the field, even after getting a doctorate are abysmally low. Add in that many of the few jobs are at evangelical or other religious schools that are hesitant to employ an active LDS scholar (or outright refuse to), it was pounded into us that "there are no jobs, there are no jobs, there are no jobs!". In fact. Gayle Strathorne (I know I am misspelling her name…), in her ANES intro class, said part of the point of the class was to emphasize that, and that by doing only the most dedicated would enter an already limited field.

In truth, I did not continue because of the financial cost and time. I couldn't justify the lengthy period and expense to get a doctorate in a field that may not employ me. Six classes from graduation, work transferred me to Houston, and in need of financial security I took it. I hope to finish my degree someday since I am so close, but for now...

Anyway, I want everyone bashing BYU to understand some MAJOR differences (this isn't directed at you David, since I know you are already aware of this):

1) The Religion Department is for teaching Institute style classes. It's objectives are to help people draw closer to God while reading slightly deeper on the text. While I tried to take courses from the likes of Wayment, who were much more academic, the focus is on religious growth and understanding of LDS doctrine. Not secular education. And that is EXACTLY how I think it should be.

2) BYU has multiple departments field with very smart specialists. The Ancient Near Eastern Studies Bachelor program was led by Dr. Pike. He taught secularly, adding in Gospel aspects as they seemed relevant, openly discussing where they converged and did not. I took classes from him such as Early Canaanite Culture and Religion, which encompassed early Israelites and was heavily academic. My final paper for that class was "The Lying God of Israel, How the Early Israelite Depiction of Deity Included Divine Deception". Dr. Parry taught fantastic classes in Biblical Hebrew, Temples, etc. Bill Hamblin made me fight for a good grade in his History of the ANES: 300 BC - 400 AD class, which I don't think had much religious persuasion in it at all. I took classes on hermetics, historiocity, etc. We tore the Old Testament to shreds, using secular arguments. And while a few couldn't handle it and left or lost their testimonies, the majority of us did just fine, although our view of all scripture changed dramatically (and I would say for the better). The debates were heated and lively.

3) BYU intentionally has decided not to go beyond a bachelor's degree in ANES. It is not because they don't want us studying it, but because they know the problems associated with getting a job if we stay with BYU for too long. Not only that, but the field itself encourages attending different schools for each level of education to get the broadest possible exposure to vastly different approaches and ideas.

4) Unfortunately, there are some in the Religion Department who are anti-academic. Or at least they say so, unless something from 3-rate scholarship happens to agree with them, which they will use. I took a couple classes from a few of them. While these are vocal, they are the minority. Most are neutral. They are doing their job, encouraging people to be better than they are, draw closer to Christ, love learning about the secular, but are limited on time because they are, honestly, engaged in what is likely a greater work.

David,

An excellent, albeit troubling point. Well written.

I have no idea where it will go from here. The reality is that the sacking of Dan and others will act as a warning against LDS students currently seeking or pondering seeking a degree in biblical studies for fear of reprisal within if they apply it to their faith. I am curious how all of this is playing out with students at BYU in the ANES program.

Turn to Page 11 of the first issue:

http://archive.org/stream/improvementera11unse#page/10/mode/2up

There is something there that I wish we had in our magazines today... articles written from leaders of other faiths declaring their views of their own faith for comparison. Awesome.

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.

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.

I think a hack is highly unlikely. That ventures deep into the highly illegal territory. And if there was an actual hack, the "reports from the mole would be much more detailed, regular, and interesting.

GREAT find- thanks- I stand corrected. (actually I sit corrected, but you know what I mean)

According to that, SCRATCH KNEW BEFORE THE EMAIL WAS SENT TO DCP

Uh oh.

Now THAT, if correct, is especially interesting. That would mean they would have to be in close contact with Brother Bradford.

I think that the initial leak was probably delivered somehow to Kevin Graham, who then leaked it to Scratch on the other board.

Even if that were true, that would hardly make Kevin the "leak". Once he had the info from somewhere else, then that would seem to make him not the leak. Accusing Kevin of passing on info he received is pointless. I suppose you could use it to limit the number of people who could be the mole, but even that would be tenuous at best.

I am sending a note to the mods to delete all of the posts after my last one with the warning. This is about a VERY SPECIFIC review of a VERY SPECIFIC video. Those who have posted otherwise, no matter their good intentions, obviously have not read or chose to ignore the minimal content in the first post.

Ah. An advertisement.

How quaint.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

Yes, there is advertising going on it it. That is not the purpose of me posting this, since I obviously disagree with Dehlin and Mormon Stories claimed objectives, or at least their actual execution. However, your post does not discuss the actual claims as requested. No more comments from anyone of this nature will be allowed, as I will delete them. I want to get to the meat of the matter, which is what does Dehlin himself say his group and podcasts are for, and if that gels with reality or is even based on reasonable assumptions.

Thanks to the mods for combining the threads!

I am listening and taking notes right now. I'll psot my summary notes after some formatting later, posting my views on it in a separate post in the thread. That way people who don't have 35 minutes to spare can get the basics.

FYI, there is a 6:30 "Short Version" that covers some very basic basics of the stance presented. It's the same video, jsut the first 6:30 of it.

Pffft... John, Way late. I psoted this like 20 minutes ago.;-)

I even set up rules to keep it clean!

Okay, so I am getting tired of these, but in light of recent events all around, one more thread. John Dehlin just posted a new video "What is Mormon Stories, and How to Keep It Alive". An unnamed ungendered associate (all very vague to prevent any concerns about privacy) who loves John Dehlin and Mormon Stories shared the link:

[media=]

Since it's his direct views, I think it useful for review here. I personally won't review this particular thread until I have viewed it in full and formed and written my own opinions. But It will be interesting to get others input also.

AS THE FOUNDER OF THIS THREAD:

DO NOT POST AN OPINION of the video or Mormon Stories if you have not watched the video and have some working familiarity with Mormon Stories itself. I desire this to be academic and low on rhetoric in nature.

Edited to Add: Warning: Video is 35 minutes long.

he better be ready to do it the Bible scholars' way with THEIR information and research without the Mormon assumptions,

Kerry,

I agree with you whole heartedly on the two choices for the new MI. If they won't engage in academic apologetics, the only two remaining choices are correlated material or secular. If they go secular, which is fine, then to be acceptable there can be nothing in there, even if logicially valid, that appears to support Mormonism or it will likely be rejected.

However... your lambasting of Wayment is ill considered based on a limited reading of his "mainsteam" writings, which were dumbed down, generally sanitized, etc by the request of certian others. But, it was also writing for a non-academic crowd. Tom is one of the leading scholars on New Testament scholarship. He regularly presents at SBL, is published in many academic journals, and is an improtant authority on early New Testament manuscripts. Having taken some classes from him, I can tell you that you would be thrilled to sit in his New Testament class, which is steeped in secular knowledge as well as moral lessons, and portrays Christ not as a tall, soft haired, soft spoken gentle person, but as someone who uses mockery, insults, was very short, may nothave said everything that the New Testament claims he said, etc. His view of Paul is also extremely complex and I would say either accepted or avant garde in the field. The important thing to remember is that he still manages to correlate certain views and also accept that certain church views are acceptable alternatives based on the evidence, even if not the most popular. And so, when writing for publication by Deseret Books, he carefully pushes the boundaries of what many Deseret Book readers can accept. It's a careful dance to continue to gain readership and push the academic boudnaries among non-academics. Even in his "ratemyprofessor.com" ratings, he has students calling him apostate (but, for the most part, they talk about him opening their eyes".

And this shouldn't be surprising. When I teach in church, I bring in secular aspects and make the class aware of views that certain academic factions believe that I may or may not. But I limit how far I push. Mainly because the setting is not for academics, it is to help people to live a better, fuller life. I admit the one single criticism I receive when I teach is that I overload on data and fail to discuss how it can improve a person's life or what lessons can be learned. Setting is king.

I can imagine how Mormons would interpret Psalm 82,

I understand you may be new to biblical scholarship, or perhaps a layman and not holding much interest in the Tanakh. For clarity, I will say that outside of some minor views held by a few theologically motivated evangelical pastors and seimnaries, academia has long held that Psalm 82 is referring to a Divine Council. The other actors in the council are not equal with God, but are still divine being of a slightly different and lesser nature. It is also accepted scholarship that early Israelites believed in the existence of many gods, not just dumb idols (although you and I both know that is what they were), that each country ahd it's own deity and victory over a people was victory of your God over theirs, etc. Over time, through several reforms and redactions, along with the influence of Zoroastrianism during the exilic period, their view of God morphed closer into line with how God is viewed today.

I want to be clear this does not mean the older view of God was correct. It's simply what they beleived. A solid argument can be made that the reforms and redactions and other influences were inspired by God, and that he tuaght the Israelites line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Unless you believe they knew 100% of the nature of God from the get go, it seems appropriate to let the scriptures speak for themselves as to what the early covenant people believed.

I believe the seer stones and Urim and Thummim were elements to focus faith. In Joseph's and other's minds, they worked. When used in "magic" treasure hunting, I believe they were falsely attributed to magic. We have record of Joseph saying that he wasn't very good at it, as also that he tried to dissuade going treasure hunting (although his dad appears to have been more enthusiastic).

Anyway, dowsing rods, seer/peep stones, consecrated oil, crosses, relics, etc all help focus faith AND the mind. It appears this is never sinful until the object itself is worshipped (ala the brass serpent of Moses). For the most part, I think that water dowsers are successful because they pick up, probably subconsciously, on what features in the land indicate water being present. Geologists and other earth science people are trained in this to help determine areas to search for oil, old magma flows, and even ancient ruins. One believes it is science, the other some mysterious force. I believe it is all in the science and power of the mind. Having a divining rod and being good at it means, to me, your real gift is to listen to your "instincts" when focusing. And that is a pretty powerful gift.

I also believe that when the mind is focused, as is faith, that is exactly when God is able to send revelation to you, among other things. Consecrated oil has no power in and of itself. But we use it to represent to God that we care enough for the sick that we will set aside something symbolic and keep it pure and holy. Then we apply it to the head and use it to help focus our faith. The Oil itself is still just oil. But our faith meeting with intense focus is what allows us to open communication with God. I believe that communication with God is through scientific principles that we as of yet do not understand, mainly some sort of device used to receive and possibly send impressions and thoughts via chemical reactions in the brain.

matt just got a used copy off of amazon for 1.99. Looking forward to it.

Wow, great deal! I love Amazon and how cheap it is to get something great!

If you haven't read Blair's review, be sure to do so. The book is slightly dated on certain issues that have now been more thoroughly addressed. The main thrust of the argument however is still relevant.

Matthew, I know it is painful for active LDS members, when family members and friends leave the church and I do feel much empathy for them...but, we are all, ultimately, responsible for our own decisions. If you are feeling inclined to blame John or Mormon Stories for your friends and family leaving (and I am not saying you are, but it kind of sounds like you might be..), I think it would be very misplaced "blame". We are all on our own journey and will gravitate to whatever places will facilitate whatever it is we need, at the time, be it church apologetics or support groups like John Dehlin's (or in some cases both). But, the decision to stay or leave rests with the individual

Libs, the pain increases with each person who leaves. It creates a feeling of isolation. For amusement, I liken it to a zombie apocalypse where one by one all of your friends and family fall.:-)

No, I don't directly blame John Dehlin. The question however for me is one of what role Mormon Stories plays. In the beginning, it was a vaguely interesting and neutral voice. That seems to have changed in the last few months and it is now much more about easing transition out of the church. Supporters of Mormon Stories deny that is the purpose. So this begs the question: If most I know who struggle leave the church or shift to cultural Mormons after being introduced to Mormon Stories and its local groups, then how neutral is it? Is my experience of losing people a statistical anomaly, or is it the standard result more often than not. Obviously John Dehlin is just one person. But he interviews many people. Further, there is no debate, no challenge of assumptions and statements of "fact" from interviewees, just them telling their stories. Obviously, that's kind of the point. But the question is, what kind of effect does such unchallenged story telling from mainly former and cultural members create?

And these people I am concerned about, for the most part, were struggling before being introduced to Mormon Stories. I can think of only one where it may have been the catalyst. Again, the question is if it moves people further or closer to faith in the restored gospel. I submit that the survey shows, in a very unique group found pretty much only on this board, that Mormon Stories for the vast majority is either of no effect or it moves people away from belief in the Restored Gospel. As such, it is poison to the spirit and I cannot suggest it to friends. I am sad to say that in the early days of Mormon Stories I was the one who introduced a now shaky friend to it, believing it would remain more neutral than it has. That mistake will not be repeated.

I would also add that John Dehlin's "Mission" can be fulfilled outside the church too, and it appears that perhaps if his organization is leading people out more than in, he should consider relinquishing his membership. Otherwise, he is indeed, even if unintentionally, a wolf in sheep's clothing from a belief standpoint (and only from that standpoint, because I do think he is a nice guy).

I think more nod more I am inclined to call it Mormon Exit Stories: Finding Peace and Vindication Together

DBMormon,

You may enjoy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Leap-Faith-Confronting-Origins-Mormon/dp/1606410539/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Blair Hodges, who used to frequent these boards and still drops in occasionally, wrote a good review of it on Amazon also, so be sure to check it out. The "Leap of Faith" view for either side is something I have always felt was a good approach in speaking about evidences for or against. I feel that it is faith that leads us to either conclusion for the church, as the solid evidence is inconclusive. My experiences put me in the true and believing category, but I recognize that intelligent people without my faith experiences can go the other way. Intelligent people exist on both sides fo the debate.

First of all, Mormon Stories is not listened to by the world at large. I have not heard any ratings for this program, but it would be surprising if this had a very large percentage of LDS membership. This poll assumes that we all listen or have listened. In my life it is irrelevant. I don't listen it to it and I don't have any desire to listen to it in the forseeable future. I am a bit perplexed as to why there was a need for the poll on something that affects so few people. It is almost as if someone wants to keep this topic front and center. Would not be the first time something like this has happened and it won't be the last.

Stormrider, it's pretty simple. I understand that few in/out of the church know what it is, though most here do. My life has however suddenly been negatively impacted by several people close to me who found it on their own, were wavering or were moderate members, and upon not only listening to Mormon Stories but talking to the "fan base" have decided to leave the church or remain for family and cultural reasons while decalring their unbelief.

As it has affected those around me that I love dearly in a negative way (from my perspective), but in the recent series of Dehlin threads about the review against Mormon Stories many people came out crying bloody murder, I thought I would attempt to assess on this very localized board if others have had similar experiences. It appears many have. It helps me to feel less alone.

And that is an improtant topic. Ex-Mormons talk about the pain of leaving the church. I don't want to mitigate that pain, as I recognize it is real. But for those who have lost many friends and family in the last few years and see many more struggling and on their way out, there is an immense sense of sorrow and pain. And we can't share that pain with many of those we love, as they in turn will feel judged that we don't take joy in their change. I don't seek contention with them so generally suffer in silence.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE POLL:

1) True Believer is anyone who believes in the basic foundational story and principles of the church, that is, that the first vision occurred, Moroni appeared, the Priesthood was restored, and that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet today. We will include anyone who believes the Book of Mormon to not be an actual historical record but believe it to be inspired, provided they accept the other aforementioned items.

2) Cultural Mormons are those who don't believe in some or all of the aforementioned items. They either don't attend church but still consider themselves Mormon, or they attend church mainly to be part of the culture, not the belief. Whether or not they have a testimony of Christ is not important to this particular poll, though it is of course important on other levels.

3) PERSONALLY KNOW is someone you know IN PERSON or have known for years online. People on a message board or chat group will generally not count. Try to limit this to family, friends, ward members, etc.

4) Don't obfuscate the meanings. Anyone can nitpick, but the questions and options are clear enough you know what is meant. Answer based on that, not on how you can creatively wrangle them.

This particularly thread is because I have just learned that a person close to me who was "on the edge" in the Gospel of belief versus non-belief and had he/she believed just come back from it recently appears to have found Mormon Stories, attended their recent conference this weekend, and is in the process of "coming out" as a non-believer in large part thanks to Mormon Stories and its "support" group.

I have personally known two other struggling but not gone members who it had the same effect on. This is in the past two or three months.

I have not known anyone personally who has been strengthened or returned from the edge through Mormon Stories.

I have known two or three cultural Mormons who both do and don't attend who have found some comfort in the sense of "I'm not alone" through Mormon Stories. They have become more open about their views, but they are not in the slightest bit strengthened.

As such, in my personal experience, and my personal experience only, Mormon Stories creates a one way bridge out of the church or is neutral, while strengthening the resolve and comfort of those who have left the church or still attend but are no longer believers. This is not a judgment against Mormon Stories, only observations from my own encounters. I have watched many and have neither moved to the right or the left of where I am, but I fall into the "strong" category as well as knowledgeable.

I am curious what other's personal experience has shown.

But does it address Polygamy, Polygny, Adam-God, Moutnain Meadow Massacre, and other items of such importance to living a Christ like life today? ;-)

In seriousness though, it sounds great!

The last time I attended the pageant was over 10 years ago, I think. At that time, they presented the scene with the live depiction of Christ's appearance after the pageant was over. It was explained to the audience that the scene was being tried out, as it were, for addition to the pageant in future years' productions.

Again, I'm surprised to hear it has taken them this long to finally put it in.

Thats not true! Manti HAS done it before, I SAW it! They showed an actor as Christ...coming down from the sky ( (looked like he was walking down some invisible stairs) to the ground where the Nephites awaited Him. it was portrayed quite nicely and was an emotional scene! This was in the late 1990's I think.

This is obviously a prime example of the LDS Church covering up its history. More proof of our villainous, or at least disingenuous, ways!

Scott, I know that when you said you were surprised, you really mean that you feel you have been or are being lied to. We all feel your pain. Fortunately, there are places you can turn to for the unadultured truth, such as the RfM boards. You can come out the other side stronger!

GingerRed, I am afraid you just imagined yours. Memories like that are delusions of the religious mind.

Re-reading the article though, it is apparent the article says nothing about it being the first time. The "Article Highlight" sidebar, which may have been done by someone else, is what says it. Probably a mis-reading of the actual news release from someone who hasn't seen it.