Non-lds Scholars And The Book Of Mormon

[Nevo]

How could I have missed something to which I made specific reference? I acknowledge that Metcalfe authored this article in New Approaches ....

I was replying to your comment that you were not aware of "anything Metcalfe has ever done, except to assemble other people's essays into a couple different books." You specifically asked for "anything he has done outside of his editorship of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha?" I guess you didn't mean this to be taken seriously, since you were in fact aware that Metcalfe had authored articles and essays in addition to editing and compiling others' work. Got it.

[LeSellers]

My bad. I thought Metcalfe "discovered" this. Out of curiosity -- do you know who did first argue that Mosiah was translated first?

I don't know except that when Martin lost the first 116 pages, Joseph didn't know what to do, so just continued with the translation from where he was.

They got to Moroni 10, and, lo! and behold! there were the small plates of Nephi. All that was necessary was to move the last few pages of English text to the beginning of the manuscript and the book was ready for printing (okeh, it was a bit more complex than that).

Technically, Mosiah was not first to be translated, but it is the oldest of the translated book that still exists.

Lehi

[Nevo]

As for Metcalfe's pretensions to textual criticism, I think Royal Skousen (a bona fide scholar in this field) thoroughly dismantled that delusion in his review of Metcalfe: Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon.

How many scholars are there in the field of Book of Mormon textual criticism? Two? Three? How presumptuous of the dilettante Metcalfe to think that he could possibly contribute anything to this vast body of learning.

[phaedrus ut]

As for Metcalfe's pretensions to textual criticism, I think Royal Skousen (a bona fide scholar in this field) thoroughly dismantled that delusion in his review of Metcalfe: Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon.

It's been a while since I've read any of Royal Skousen's work. I hope this article isn't representative of all of his work.

Phaedrus

[Rommelator]

The bottom line is.... who cares what anybody else things about your faith?

I actually agree with this sentiment. I was not trying to imply that non-LDS scholars have proven my faith or that I rush to scholarship to confirm what I believe. I was simply interested in seeing what people thought specifically about this article specifically, and non-Mormon approaches to the Book of Mormon in general.

[e=mc2]

My Mostest Favoritest Unka Dale axes:

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

Kerry:

Done. Robert F. Smith. Baptized last year, after having been a very SERIOUS Non-LDS scholar for literally decades. John Tvedtnes told me about this. Wish I had kept the email.

[Rommelator]

Ah! I just remembered, that couple who were the curators of the Teotihuacan archaeological site and later converted after reading the Book of Mormon. They were even in the 2nd Journey of Faith DVD. Goldsmith I think the name was.

But, as B. H. Roberts said:

"I care not a fig for the statements of either the learned divines or scientists on this subject [i.e. the Gospel]."

Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 21.

Thanks to Kerry Shirts for reminding me on Youtube to pick that one up again.

[Uncle Dale]

My Mostest Favoritest Unka Dale axes:

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

Kerry:

Done. Robert F. Smith. Baptized last year, after having been a very SERIOUS Non-LDS scholar for literally decades.

John Tvedtnes told me about this. Wish I had kept the email.

Good work, pilgrim.

I take it he was converted as a result of his scientific/historical/scholarly research,

and not simply because he became convinced the book was true, by spiritual means?

If so, I'd like to read his reporting on the study that led him to join the LDS Church,

and reject the Reorganized LDS.

Yer ol' Uncle

[sethpayne]

Good work, pilgrim.

I take it he was converted as a result of his scientific/historical/scholarly research,

and not simply because he became convinced the book was true, by spiritual means?

If so, I'd like to read his reporting on the study that led him to join the LDS Church,

and reject the Reorganized LDS.

Yer ol' Uncle

Come on Uncle Dave.... we LDS are WAY cooler than you reorganized folk. Plus, we've got Brigham Young which pretty much guarantees that LDS discussions are going to be much more interesting than RLDS discussions.

[Nevo]

Done. Robert F. Smith. Baptized last year, after having been a very SERIOUS Non-LDS scholar for literally decades. John Tvedtnes told me about this. Wish I had kept the email.

You mean the Robert F. Smith who has been writing LDS apologetics since the 1970s, and who was a leading researcher for FARMS throughout the 1980s, just recently got baptized? That's bizarre.

[consiglieri]

You mean the Robert F. Smith who has been writing LDS apologetics since the 1970s, and who was a leading researcher for FARMS throughout the 1980s, just recently got baptized? That's bizarre.

It is a surprise to me, too. I seem to recollect his name as being associated with a paper dealing with the names of Zeezrom and Antionah likely being named for the Nephite monetary units of ezrom and antion.

I would be very interested in hearing/reading of his intellectual journey to baptism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[semlogo]

Actually, I did read that part -- but I'll be more impressed with the idea

when I begin to see those "serious non-LDS scholars" converting to LDS.

So long as they remain "serious non-LDS scholars," they are obviously

holding open the probability that the text is not an authentic ancient

document -- a production of the once mighty, Christian Nephite nation.

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

UD

How many serious Biblical scholars are atheists? I don't know the answer, but I know there are a lot of them. Maybe most of them.

[Uncle Dale]

How many serious Biblical scholars are atheists?

I don't know the answer, but I know there are a lot of them. Maybe most of them.

My adviser in the graduate theological school was a published biblical scholar

and an atheist --- but, when I say that, I should also add that he was a very

spiritual fellow, with a personal philosophy in tune with Buddhism/Taoism.

I also had occasion to meet (and study under a few of them) numerous

biblical scholars whom most of us would call heterodox, or even apostate.

There is something about a life-long study of Ancient Near Eastern cultures/texts

that tends to change a person's religious views. Perhaps many such scholars

keep that fact hidden, and go about their respective religious lives without

saying much that is controversial in church, etc.

This is part of the reason that I find it hard to believe that many (if any) of

these sorts of people pursue a course of study that leads them to the conclusion

that Mormonism is the modern continuation/restoration of Apostolic Christianity.

Out of our planet's billions of souls, will there be a few such oddballs, though?

Probably so -- I'd be interested in conversing with them.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Didn't Metcalfe argue that resumption of the BoM translation began with Mosiah? That is even included in the Church history institute manual.

Brent was scarcely the originator of that idea.

I bumped around a bit in circles related to John Tvedtnes's circles in Jerusalem. I met Flusser, have a very close friend (LDS) who also studied with Rabin, etc. Tvedtnes's account rings true to me, based upon what I know about those men. I heard similar remarks from David Noel Freedman, with whom I was reasonably well acquainted. I know a man in the Middle East, a native speaker of Arabic with a Ph.D. from the University of Paris, who came to belief in the Book of Mormon because, he said, in his judgment it had all the earmarks of an ancient Near Eastern text and was "not American at all." I would dearly love to have him write up his thoughts on the matter for publication -- I heard him speak on it in Arabic, in a sacrament meeting in the Middle East some years ago -- but have not yet pulled that off.

A friend of mine, studying in graduate school with the well-known Semitist Stanislav Segert, remembers how deeply impressed Professor Segert was by chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is something about a life-long study of Ancient Near Eastern cultures/texts that tends to change a person's religious views. Perhaps many such scholars keep that fact hidden, and go about their respective religious lives without saying much that is controversial in church, etc.

If you're meaning to suggest that students of the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible typically lose their faith, I'm going to have to call for evidence to support that proposition. Anecdotally, if roughly two decades of attending and participating in the annual national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature is any guide, I would judge that the large majority of such academics are, in fact, believers.

Now, that's not to say that they're right. But there are hordes and hordes of such people across the country, speaking of Christian seminaries and colleges alone. And BYU has more than a few of them itself, like John Gee, Kent Jackson, Dana Pike, David Seely, Paul Hoskisson, Michael Rhodes, Stephen Ricks, Donald Parry, Kerry Muhlstein, and etc., and etc.

[sethpayne]

Brent was scarcely the originator of that idea.

But the real question is Metcalfe still butthead?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Margaret Barker likes the Book of Mormon. There's a non-Mormon scholar for you.

[Daniel Peterson]

But the real question is Metcalfe still butthead?

Alas, yes.

[Uncle Dale]

If you're meaning to suggest that students of the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible typically lose their faith, I'm going to have to call for evidence to support that proposition. Anecdotally, if roughly two decades of attending and participating in the annual national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature is any guide, I would judge that the large majority of such academics are, in fact, believers.

Now, that's not to say that they're right. But there are hordes and hordes of such people across the country, speaking of Christian seminaries and colleges alone. And BYU has more than a few of them itself, like John Gee, Kent Jackson, Dana Pike, David Seely, Paul Hoskisson, Michael Rhodes, Stephen Ricks, Donald Parry, Kerry Muhlstein, and etc., and etc.

Well, Daniel, we are back to our old disagreement on what "faith" is and how it

relates to "beliefs."

I do not know every scholar of religion around -- you are in a better circumstance

to encounter them in large numbers than I am.

But it has been my observation -- and one reinforced by anecdotal and literary

instances reported by others -- that continued, individual study of ancient texts,

cultures, religions, etc., tends to separate such scholars from their lay brethren.

Perhaps not always in terms of "faith" -- as I define it. But, rather, in terms of beliefs.

I have studied under an eminent Presbyterian biblical scholar (Simon De Vries)

whose beliefs about Israelite pre-history are radically different from what we

might extrapolate from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Presbyterian theology;

and yet, as a faithful God-fearing Christian, he ranks very high on anybody's scale.

When such a man sits in chapel, or lectures from the pulpit, he may take care not

to enter into any controversies which would disturb the congregation --- but ask him

privately if Adam and Eve were historical personages, and you may get an earful.

On the other hand, I fully believe that you and most of your co-religionists with

advanced degrees, might go through Talmadge, page-by-page, and not find one

single point of disagreement in all the minutiae of the LDS Artucles of Faith.

Take my explanation for what it is worth -- it is the sort of "evidence" I am prone

to cite; and you know me well enough not to get into disagreements over what

each of us believe, I'd guess.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

But it has been my observation -- and one reinforced by anecdotal and literary instances reported by others -- that continued, individual study of ancient texts, cultures, religions, etc., tends to separate such scholars from their lay brethren.

There wouldn't be much point in devoting years to such study, it seems to me, if it didn't separate scholars from their lay brethren in at least some respects. If a more detailed, more nuanced, more informed, much more prolonged engagement with ancient texts in their difficult original languages left one in exactly the same position as one who had given such texts little or no serious attention even in translation, I would say that the scholar would have been much better off simply going for an MBA or spending his free time watching ESPN.

But there are hundreds of faithful evangelical biblical scholars -- to mention only one species of such academics -- at every annual gathering of the Society of Biblical Literature, and I suspect that, if they were altogether to go away, the organization would collapse.

[Uncle Dale]

There wouldn't be much point in devoting years to such study, it seems to me, if it didn't separate scholars from their lay brethren in at least some respects. If a more detailed, more nuanced, more informed, much more prolonged engagement with ancient texts in their difficult original languages left one in exactly the same position as one who had given such texts little or no serious attention even in translation, I would say that the scholar would have been much better off simply going for an MBA or spending his free time watching ESPN.

But there are hundreds of faithful evangelical biblical scholars -- to mention only one species of such academics -- at every annual gathering of the Society of Biblical Literature, and I suspect that, if they were altogether to go away, the organization would collapse.

Actually, we probably are not that far apart in our observations and assessments here.

As for me, I might take some small measure of ironic comfort,

in getting those "faithful evangelical biblical scholars," debating

the precise meaning of "election;" or whether Luther's views

on the limits of NT canon had any merit.

Kinda hard to get that sort of contentious back-and-forth going at

Sunday High Priests' Quorum, eh?

UD

.

[phaedrus ut]

If you're meaning to suggest that students of the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible typically lose their faith, I'm going to have to call for evidence to support that proposition. Anecdotally, if roughly two decades of attending and participating in the annual national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature is any guide, I would judge that the large majority of such academics are, in fact, believers.

I'm going to say that I'm with Uncle Dale on this one. In my experience once students engage in critical biblical scholarship most have a substantial change in their belief system. Some become non-believers, others find ways to reconcile their faith, others adopt a completely new belief system.

I've had a few people in LDS circles tell me specifically that it's hard to pursue advanced religious studies and avoid losing your faith.

Phaedrus

[sethpayne]

I've had a few people in LDS circles tell me specifically that it's hard to pursue advanced religious studies and avoid losing your faith.

Phaedrus

Which is why there are conferences like this:

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/

[Daniel Peterson]

All I can offer in reply is that, when I attend the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the place is jam-packed with evangelical Bible scholars and the enormous book display is crammed with works of evangelical biblical scholarship.

By sheer quantity, such people represent a very large proportion of the attendees and exhibitors, if not a majority.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I've had a few people in LDS circles tell me specifically that it's hard to pursue advanced

religious studies and avoid losing your faith.

Phaedrus

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll once again cite the LDS

tendency to equate faith and beliefs, on a one-to-one basis.

Those who have no faith, other than their acquired beliefs, are prone

to lose what the LDS view as "faith," when they alter their religious beliefs.

Scott Kenny (the founder of "Sunstone Review") experienced a theological

development parallel to my own, in the 1970s. After graduating from a

Baptist seminary, Scott slowly began to shed both his LDS beliefs and faith.

In my case, the faith remains, along with a substantial part of my old

RLDS beliefs.

I can only speculate where Scott might have ended up, had he kept his faith.

UD

.