Have things changed?

[Calm]

Family, heritage, community.

My heritage is English and German...I manage to keep it just fine even though I've never even set foot in either country. I certainly don't need citizenship in either country.

As far as "community" goes, nonmembers are welcome to attend whenever they desire, some even hold callings.

Family is the only real issue here and that is dependent on the unique characteristics of the family unit involved as well as being even more dependent on the individual trying to 'fit in' (I say this because in my experience in watching families with 'mixed' members, it is the individual and how much they insist on bringing their issues up that is crucial to the social mixing though there are likely families out there where even the most gentle soul is going to get slammed for believing something besides the family dogma).

[mfbukowski]

How can one be part of any solution (within the church) if they are forced out of it? They cannot.

Nobody is forcing anyone out of anywhere. The only ones who are "forced" are those who teach false doctrine and try, essentially, to change other's minds away from the church. If they are contributing, doing their home teaching, accepting callings, that's fine. But guess what. They are not going to be serving because they don't believe the church is true. And who as a TBM would want a non-believer teaching their kids all that was wrong with the church in their opinion? That is what I meant by "if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem".

Do non-literalists not have the right to bless and be blessed within the community of the LDS church? I believe they do.

This has noting to do with "non-literalism". I am a "non-literalist in many areas. This has to do with those who believe in the gospel or do not believe. I have a very strong testimony regardless of "literalism".

Are you one who also suggests people move out of the country if they do not agree with every single thing going on in America? Because this would be the same type of situation. A person can love their country and see the good in it without agreeing with everything. In fact, they can even peacefully protest things they disagree with. I can see the good in the church even if I disagree with some things and have a differing theology. It is my family and where I find fellowship. I have no reason to leave it just because my faith is no longer (mis)placed in the institution.

Totally absurd analogy. Free speech is designed for those who disagree to be able to express their opinions. The church is for preaching orthodox opinions, and is not based on "free speech" in that sense. Why don't you join a synagogue for fellowship and cultural friendship? Because you do not believe in Judaism. So why stay in the church if you don't believe? Do you home teach? Do you teach lessons? Do you go to ward dinners? (and spend the ward's money without contributing?) Do you contribute anything?

I'm sorry that you have such a hard time understanding why a non-believer or someone without a testimony would want to stay in the church. That might explain your lack of compassion towards them.

Nope. I have compassion toward those who do not believe. The world is full of people who do not believe and I do my best to get the word out.

But why would anyone tax the resources of an organization they don't believe in, and don't contribute to? It's like the owner of a strip mining operation joining the Sierra Club because his friends are there. It is totally inconsistent.

[Somebodyz]

I'm sorry that you have such a hard time understanding why a non-believer or someone without a testimony would want to stay in the church. That might explain your lack of compassion towards them.

You were not talking to me but...my 2 cents anyway.

IMO I think the Lord would be happy to see anyone coming to Church to support their family, their friends etc. Even if they don't believe, (as long as they are not there to cause trouble) they are in the right place. Maybe a testimony will come from that in time.

Loving thy neighbour is a good enough reason to come to Church.

While as a member, I'd feel sad for those, who doesn't have a testimony or belief, they are still equal and deserving of our time, love and friendship. I know non members, who give much to their ward, while supporting their family members (wife/children)

Isn't everyone meant to be welcome to our wards? I've seen non members who have a better idea of service, love and respect for family than some members.

[alter idem]

Thank you bluebell, I see what you are saying. When I read this sentence from alter idem: "They left the church, they want SOMEONE to care, they want someone to be upset that they left, they want to feel they matter and their thoughts matter.", i understood it as the exmember's feelings not mattering much to the church. Sorry for misunderstanding your statement alter idem.

I went back and read what I wrote and I can see that it could have been taken either way--so I don't think you misunderstood me--I was too vague, sorry. But Juliann was right in her interpretation. What I meant was that posters here, whether LDS, ex-LDS, whatever, I think a lot of them like to think that someone reads what they write...that what they say matters and might garner the attention of others--thinking that a General Authority might be reading posts--that makes people feel important--even the ones that complain that they think it's spying..the fact is, they WANT the attention.

But I'm afraid I believe that most of what we write here goes unnoticed..even by other posters. Oftentimes when I read threads it's clear that some posters don't read the posts before theirs. They read the OP, maybe skim a couple of later posts and then post themselves--they don't spend much time reading others' responses.

Hope this clarifies.

[Mortal Man]

I always enjoy a good belly laugh when people (this is not the first time it has happened) compare David Wright to Galileo. As one who has made David Wright's published journal entries a focus of specific study, on account of their constituting a veritable treasure trove of the inner workings of the apostate mind, I am always intrigued by those who have, evidently, been greatly influenced by Wright's self-justifications. Of course, it surprises me not at all to see that Mortal Man has now apparently come to view Wright as some kind of personal hero. I have no doubt that he will hasten to follow his mentor in every respect.

There is an episode in The Fountainhead (that's Ayn Rand for those of you in Rio Linda) where Howard Roark explains to Peter Keating that the meaning of life essentially boils down to: "My work done my way."

There is an analogous episode in Man's Search for Meaning (that's Viktor Frankl for those of you in Boise) where Dr. Frankl takes umbrage at a guard's casual judgement of his laziness and low productivity. Dr. Frankl explains that physical abuse, starvation, inadequate clothing/shelter etc. were never cause for offense, but something deep inside him recoiled at being judged by a man who was wholly ignorant of him as a person.

Finally, there is an episode in the Pearl of Great Price (that's Moses for those of you in Orem) where God explains His work and His glory.

What do these three events have in common?

[frankenstein]

Elder Bednar spoke at my ward once and stated that he sometime views the blogs, he said it saddened him to see people post somethings. Mainly those things which the poster is told in a one on one conversation about a specific issue in their life. He also told us to not go home and post what he had spoken of, one reason being we probably did not understand what he meant about the topics he spoke on. as for LDS agent trolling (fishing term) the interwebs looking for people to excommunicate, i agree with above it gives people some sense that someone else might be reading what they post...however false the self legitimacy is.

[David Bokovoy]

Big big difference. I believe the church is true. Wright thought the church was a "lie".

Not only did David never call the Church "a lie," to this day, I can't imagine him making this statement, despite the way he was treated.

He admits he must "stand away" from the church, yet protests his excommunication. What does he want anyway? To stand away from the church and have the church not stand away from him?

David protested his excommunication because he did not want to "stand away" from the Church, despite the fact that he held some unorthodox views, many of which, I dare say are held to some degree or another by many of the faithful Latter-day Saint apologists who frequent this forum, including a belief in evolution, and a non-universal flood, etc.

Deborah,

I find it interesting that Wright's thousands of hours of research led him to different conclusions than other scholars who have also spent thousands of hours of research, but his conclusions are truth while that of others is not.

Just curious. What Latter-day Saint scholars did we have before Wright who were academically trained in Hebrew Bible? How many LDS scholars do we have now who have received the same training?

I am skeptical of anyone who chooses to publish letters which should be personal to get sympathy for his side.

Would you define his actions as an effort to "get sympathy for his side," or to explain to those who might judge him negatively as a possible fornicator, adulteror, etc. the true reasons for his excommunication. Given all of the judgmental attacks against him in this thread, it would appear to me that he was justified in letting the public know.

This comparison is disturbing. I doubt if the issue in Wright's case is orthodoxy so much as open rebellion against the the church.

Case in point.

Will,

There are certainly degrees of mild heterodoxy that are not grounds for excommunication. But apostasy always is, and ought to be.

There certainly are a lot of folks these days anxious to label those who profess a perceived unorthodox view as "apostate." Medrumites do it of intellectuals at FAIR and FARMS, MA&D board posters do it of scholars like David Wright, etc. etc.

"Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight

When I run outa things to investigate.

Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,

So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!

Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great Gd!"

---Bob Dylan, "John Birch Society Blues"

[O-Brother]

One of the problems with exit narratives is that you only get one side of the story, because the church does not comment on disciplinary councils. In certain cases, however, I get the impression that the story is basically accurate. Regarding the excommunication of scholars and intellectuals, I've heard from some people that times have changed; i.e., that members are now free to express doubts and publish their research without fear of reprisal. However, I've heard from other people that certain seventies have been tasked with monitoring this board for the purpose of identifying candidates for excommunication. Which is it?

Wrong Church. Wrong Century. Wrong IP address.

[jwhitlock]

There certainly are a lot of folks these days anxious to label those who profess a perceived unorthodox view as "apostate." Medrumites do it of intellectuals at FAIR and FARMS, MA&D board posters do it of scholars like David Wright, etc. etc.

Yet is it really just "unorthodox"? In reading over his letter - if it is accurate - I sense a disturbing willingness to associate himself with the likes of Toscano, et al, whose views and activities can be construed in no other way but "apostate".

Or is it the fact that once "scholarly and academic independence and honesty" has been invoked, we are no longer free to question motivations - the thinking has been done?

Being poorly treated is one thing - and it does happen from time to time - but from the link itself, without any other information, I find too much smoke to think that it was as one sided as is being portrayed. Once certainly senses a level of academic arrogance in his writings (he doesn't hold Nibley in particularly high regard) that would point towards him thinking that he "knows better" than others - including most Church leaders. Hence, when it comes to a willingness to publicly label the Book of Abraham as a product of Joseph Smith's imagination, along with a rather lame "inspired if you will" sop to Joseph's prophetic calling, it becomes questionable as to whether the charge of not being "orthodox" is really the issue here.

[David Bokovoy]

Yet is it really just "unorthodox"? In reading over his letter - if it is accurate - I sense a disturbing willingness to associate himself with the likes of Toscano, et al, whose views and activities can be construed in no other way but "apostate".

Or is it the fact that once "scholarly and academic independence and honesty" has been invoked, we are no longer free to question motivations - the thinking has been done?

Actually, it's quite the opposite and hence the beauty of scholarship. A perspective is always open to modification in accordance with new evidence and additional thinking.

Being poorly treated is one thing - and it does happen from time to time - but from the link itself, without any other information, I find too much smoke to think that it was as one sided as is being portrayed. Once certainly senses a level of academic arrogance in his writings (he doesn't hold Nibley in particularly high regard) that would point towards him thinking that he "knows better" than others - including most Church leaders. Hence, when it comes to a willingness to publicly label the Book of Abraham as a product of Joseph Smith's imagination, along with a rather lame "inspired if you will" sop to Joseph's prophetic calling, it becomes questionable as to whether the charge of not being "orthodox" is really the issue here

.

You're not seriously suggesting that if one finds Nibley's apologetic work problematic it's grounds for official sanctions? And of course David Wright knows more about biblical scholarship than any of the Brethren. The Brethren aren't called to be the Lord's anointed because they're the most qualified biblical scholars. These men of God are called to their positions as special witnesses of Christ because they know him and understand how to minister to the spiritual needs of God's children.

[jwhitlock]

Actually, it's quite the opposite and hence the beauty of scholarship. A perspective is always open to modification in accordance with new evidence and additional thinking.

Yet I continue to come across quite a few academics (not all, of course) who are anything but open to new ideas or any questioning of their agendas. These folks also hide behind "academic integrity" and "scholarship".

You're not seriously suggesting that if one finds Nibley's apologetic work problematic it's grounds for official sanctions?

You're not seriously suggesting that I even inferred this, are you?

And of course David Wright knows more about biblical scholarship than any of the Brethren.

Does he also know more about the Book of Abraham than any of the Brethren? That, after all, is the real question here.

The Brethren aren't called to be the Lord's anointed because they're the most qualified biblical scholars. These men of God are called to their positions as special witnesses of Christ because they know him and understand how to minister to the spiritual needs of God's children.

And so, to get back to the real question at hand, how are we supposed to reconcile the biblical scholar telling us that the Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith's creation, with those who are special witnesses telling us it is not? That's a pretty wide divide, and something that hardly falls within the mild rebuke of "unorthodoxy".

[juliann]

Being poorly treated is one thing - and it does happen from time to time - but from the link itself, without any other information, I find too much smoke to think that it was as one sided as is being portrayed.

Given the era, I don't see much reason to question it. I think this was an unfortunate lesson for the church....as evidenced by the unwillingness to ex Tom Murphy. Perhaps Wright's biggest mistake was publishing in that gosh awful book.

I think excommunicants established a tortured and off-putting literary style that probably started in this era and remains today as part of a standard exit narrative. But if David thinks Wright is being misjudged, I'm going with David.

[Deborah]

Perhaps Wright's biggest mistake was publishing in that gosh awful book.

But isn't that the issue? It's not unorthodox views, and from what I've read of Wright his views were more than just unorthodox, but the fact that he gave fodder to the antis as far as the Book of Abraham or even the Book of Mormon. I don't even think it was his views per se but the way they were presented.

I think it very sad that given his background in the church he was exed and along with him his family left the church. I wonder why more consideration wasn't given to the effect on the family, which it seems is more of a consideration today. I also wonder if the outcome would have been the same had he chosen to go to that disciplinary council.

[David Bokovoy]

John,

I'm not going to enter into a debate on these issues with you. Suffice it to say that I studied with David Wright for nearly a decade. He is both my professor and my friend. I know him quite well. In all the years I studied with him, David never forced and/or encouraged me to adopt any views whatsoever concerning any aspect of Mormonism. He is a very kindly, loving soul and I myself am fully devoted to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

David passed through the intellectual/spiritual fire back in a day when to accept the idea that Deuteronomy wasn't written by Moses was considered a great heresy. And yet look at how many LDS scholars today accept the notion of a Deuteronomist! My heavens, some even use the notion via Margaret Barker as evidence for the authenticity of Mormonism. David Wright in many ways was all alone, however, trying to make sense of his spiritual convictions and intellectual knowledge.

I'm not claiming that he handled everything the best way possible, and neither would he.

Yet, I honestly don't believe that anyone who has not passed through a serious biblical studies program can begin to appreciate just how difficult a journey this proves. Not just for Mormons, but for all people of faith. When I first informed a very prominent BYU professor that I was leaving BYU to pursue graduate degrees in Hebrew Bible, I was specifically warned not to do so, on the grounds that we had yet to have anyone pass through such a program and retain his or her testimony. I was instead counseled to pursue a peripheral field such as Assyriology and/or North West Semitics where I could pursue my interests and yet be safe. And if you look at the past, that's what almost all the respected LDS religion professors/scholars had done: Hoskisson: Assyriology, Ricks: Comparative Semitics, Ludlow: Jewish studies, etc., etc. None of these guys were Bible scholars.

Today, however, it's a new world for LDS graduate students in Bible and I believe that we as a Church have learned from our mistakes and are moving forward towards greatness. Juliann is absolutely correct that the previous generation was in many ways a difficult era, not only for Wright but also for the Church, and unfortunately David Wright and his family were caught up in the middle of this tragic circumstance. Trust me, I've had many conversations with LDS graduate students in religious studies. Today, David is looked upon as a heroic figure by many of these faithful students, and rightly so from my perspective.

The issue of historicity is an academic rather than a spiritual question and no one should be judged and/or ostracized for holding a non-traditional view.

[dblagent007]

There are certainly degrees of mild heterodoxy that are not grounds for excommunication. But apostasy always is, and ought to be.

Hey Schryver . . . JOHN MAY LIVES!

As for David Wright, he said he went where the evidence took him. I can't see any reason to doubt him. Will seems to have some inside info about his scholarly work justifying the real reason he was exed, but Will's world of mind reading can generally be dismissed out of hand (got some actual evidence Will? - yeah, I didn't think so).

[dblagent007]

The issue of historicity is an academic rather than a spiritual question and no one should be judged and/or ostracized for holding a non-traditional view.

Wow, if only more people shared this view!

[mfbukowski]

Not only did David never call the Church "a lie," to this day, I can't imagine him making this statement, despite the way he was treated...

David protested his excommunication because he did not want to "stand away" from the Church, despite the fact that he held some unorthodox views, many of which, I dare say are held to some degree or another by many of the faithful Latter-day Saint apologists who frequent this forum, including a belief in evolution, and a non-universal flood, etc.

I was simply going by what was said on the site I quoted, quoting both David and his wife. I don't know him and don't know his heart, but that is what was clearly implied in his statements, specifically:

David cannot say that there is evidence to support something just to make people like him or even to protect his membership in this church. David's beliefs are based on a careful, detailed study of the scriptures. To be orthodox, David would have to say that the evidence that he sees in the scriptures is not there. In other words, (from his viewpoint) he would need to lie.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/dpw.shtml

[jwhitlock]

The issue of historicity is an academic rather than a spiritual question and no one should be judged and/or ostracized for holding a non-traditional view.

As long as the academician limits him / herself to strict issues of history, then that's not a problem. Yet there's always that awful problem of grey area, and of moving into issues of faith and of the Spirit that seems to get them into trouble. Can the concept of the Book of Abraham be limited strictly to history, pigeonholing it as a product of Joseph's imagination? I think not, not without venturing into the realm of faith and skirting with the denial of that faith. That seems to be the issue of some very clear statements from him, and that's the very issue that's being skirted around right now.

As for being "judged" or "ostracized" for holding a non-traditional view, it would appear that the phrase is being overly broadly applied to justify viewpoints that extend far beyond mere historicity and into matters of faith and of doctrine. While there can be honest differences of opinion concerning the flood, for instance, there is clear conflict between the Book of Abraham as scripture, and the book of abraham as a charade on Joseph's part.

You know him, and have worked with him. That gives you some insight into him. I only have what he has written to base my conclusions about whether his viewpoints were simply non-traditional, or whether he ventured into academic pronouncements on matters of faith. What he has written does not convince me that this was a simple issue of academic persecution by misguided Church officials. You may be in a position to clarify some of his statements that are problematic; will you do so?

Perhaps you are also familiar with those who were involved in his excommunication. If so, perhaps you can shed some light on their perspective in this whole matter, since we don't have "the other side of the story". Was it as one sided as he portrays it, or was it a situation where academic stubbornness met LDS cultural stubbornness, and neither side would give ground until the only conclusion possible was to part ways?

As far as debate goes, I have no interest in "judging" or "ostracizing" other than evaluating what's been publicly presented. Like any divorce, there's his side, her side, and the truth, and while he has both his champions and his detractors, I suspect that reality lies somewhere in between.

[David Bokovoy]

I was simply going by what was said on the site I quoted, quoting both David and his wife. I don't know him and don't know his heart, but that is what was clearly implied in his statements, specifically:

And all I'm pointing out is that saying the Church is a lie is not that same thing as saying, "if you force me to state that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and/or that the Book of Abraham predates the book of Genesis in order to retain my membership, you're telling me from my viewpoint that I need to lie."

Two very different things.

Best,

--DB

[mfbukowski]

And all I'm point out is that saying the Church is a lie is not that same thing as saying, "if you force me to state that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and/or that the Book of Abraham predates the book of Genesis in order to retain my membership, you're telling me from my viewpoint that I need to lie."

Two very different things.

Best,

--DB

Well yes it is. But are you really saying that he was excommunicated JUST for that? I am honestly asking- I don't know the case or the situation. If that is the case, he should have not been excommunicated. Biblical scholarship is not part of church doctrine.

Edit: His letter details problems with priesthood and other issues as well

[David Bokovoy]

As long as the academician limits him / herself to strict issues of history, then that's not a problem. Yet there's always that awful problem of grey area, and of moving into issues of faith and of the Spirit that seems to get them into trouble. Can the concept of the Book of Abraham be limited strictly to history, pigeonholing it as a product of Joseph's imagination? I think not, not without venturing into the realm of faith and skirting with the denial of that faith. That seems to be the issue of some very clear statements from him, and that's the very issue that's being skirted around right now.

Well, that's the problem, right. A biblical scholar is not a theologian, nor is he or she necessarily authorized to make theological statements for the Lord's Church. Yet, if the scholar determines that historical evidence suggests that traditional views regarding LDS scriptural claims for historicity are inaccurate, what then? What if the scholar doesn't wish to abandon his or her spiritual witness for the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and therefore opts to view the Egyptian papyri and the King James version of the Bible as catalyses for the revelatory process? Should he or she be forced out of the Church for continuing to believe despite all evidence to the contrary? In my estimation, such persons should be praised for successfully facing the Abrahamic test of spiritual/intellectual contradictions (see Genesis 22), rather than disciplined.

As for being "judged" or "ostracized" for holding a non-traditional view, it would appear that the phrase is being overly broadly applied to justify viewpoints that extend far beyond mere historicity and into matters of faith and of doctrine. While there can be honest differences of opinion concerning the flood, for instance, there is clear conflict between the Book of Abraham as scripture, and the book of abraham as a charade on Joseph's part.

Not all of us would agree to seeing the issue as a dichotomy in terms of historically authentic versus lying charade.

You know him, and have worked with him. That gives you some insight into him. I only have what he has written to base my conclusions about whether his viewpoints were simply non-traditional, or whether he ventured into academic pronouncements on matters of faith. What he has written does not convince me that this was a simple issue of academic persecution by misguided Church officials. You may be in a position to clarify some of his statements that are problematic; will you do so?

Perhaps you are also familiar with those who were involved in his excommunication. If so, perhaps you can shed some light on their perspective in this whole matter, since we don't have "the other side of the story". Was it as one sided as he portrays it, or was it a situation where academic stubbornness met LDS cultural stubbornness, and neither side would give ground until the only conclusion possible was to part ways?

As far as debate goes, I have no interest in "judging" or "ostracizing" other than evaluating what's been publicly presented. Like any divorce, there's his side, her side, and the truth, and while he has both his champions and his detractors, I suspect that reality lies somewhere in between.

I'm not about to share information and/or pass judgment on David Wright and/or the Nashua Stake Priesthood leaders for an event that took place quite some time ago, in a difficult era. I am personally deeply saddened that David Wright and his family are no longer members of the Church.

Suffice it to say that I myself hold a deep spiritual conviction in the truthfulness of restored scripture and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm very grateful that today it's a new world for LDS graduate students in Bible and I believe that we as a Church have learned from our mistakes and are moving forward towards greatness. I would hope that in the future there will always be a place in the kingdom for those who hold non-traditional views, for when it comes right down to it, in one way or another, don't we all?

[mfbukowski]

David B:

I think the contrast between your position as I understand it, and Wright's is clear

Quoting Wright:

Conclusion: These evidences coupled with Thompson's observations show that the Book of Abraham is not the composition of Abraham, not historical, and, in fact, the product of Joseph Smith's creative--inspired, if you will--exegesis. This auctorial conclusion can be made with confidence. It is far from a wild speculation. In contrast it must be noted that much of the scholarship that has been written defending the antiquity of the book (and Abrahamic authorship or its historicity), most of it by Hugh Nibley, is weak and speculative if not essentially flawed by lack of precision in reading texts and by methodological looseness.

If I have any questions for Thompson, they have to do with the future of the Book of Abraham as an object of scholarly interest and as a work of scripture in Mormon tradition. On the scholarly side of things, if we can confidently think that Joseph Smith is its composer, what further issues remain to be studied? What tools are necessary for those who would seek to study the Book of Abraham on this basis? What interests might scholars bring to bear on the book? On the religious side of things, what should the church (or churches) do with the Book of Abraham? Should the book be demoted from the canon? If not, is there a need for revising the understanding of what scripture and even revelation is?

Clearly he is not seeing the BOA as scriptural regardless of when it was "written" and is in fact retaining a rather literalistic interpretation of historicity which, unless I am mistaken, you do not.

I think it is clear that his view is "apostate" whereas yours is not. There is a big difference from what I think your view is.

[mfbukowski]

Well, that's the problem, right. A biblical scholar is not a theologian, nor is he or she necessarily authorized to make theological statements for the Lord's Church. Yet, if the scholar determines that historical evidence suggests that traditional views regarding LDS scriptural claims for historicity are inaccurate, what then? What if the scholar doesn't wish to abandon his or her spiritual witness for the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and therefore opts to view the Egyptian papyri and the King James version of the Bible as catalyses for the revelatory process? Should he or she be forced out of the Church for continuing to believe despite all evidence to the contrary? In my estimation, such persons should be praised for successfully facing the Abrahamic test of spiritual/intellectual contradictions (see Genesis 22), rather than disciplined.

It seems to me the issue is not that complicated. If one believes the Book of Abraham is scripture, however one arrives at the conclusion intellectually, one's opinion can be considered "orthodox". That is the church's position.

If one believes, as a result of the problems we are all familiar with, that it is not "scripture" then one could properly be classed as being in conflict with the "orthodox position" and therefore "apostate" and subject to excommunication for "apostasy".

What's wrong with that?

Edit: Facing the Abrahamic test is not the same as passing it.

[jwhitlock]

Well, that's the problem, right. A biblical scholar is not a theologian, nor is he or she necessarily authorized to make theological statements for the Lord's Church. Yet, if the scholar determines that historical evidence suggests that traditional views regarding LDS scriptural claims for historicity are inaccurate, what then? What if the scholar doesn't wish to abandon his or her spiritual witness for the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and therefore opts to view the Egyptian papyri and the King James version of the Bible as catalyses for the revelatory process? Should he or she be forced out of the Church for continuing to believe despite all evidence to the contrary? In my estimation, such persons should be praised for successfully facing the Abrahamic test of spiritual/intellectual contradictions (see Genesis 22), rather than disciplined.

If that is the case, then I would agree. But was it?

Not all of us would agree to seeing the issue as a dichotomy in terms of historically authentic versus lying charade.

I phrase it this way because I sense, in his writings a strong leaning towards the "product of Joseph" school of thought, with only a very small and qualified acknowledgment that "inspiration" may have played some part. Perhaps I missed something that he wrote about still considering the BofA as scripture, despite a perceived lack of historical evidence. If so, I would appreciate it being pointed out so I can modify my viewpoint.

Such clarification would be appreciated, because otherwise - as Deborah noted - we are left with the impression of an active undermining of the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture. While one can have a differing viewpoint of whether the actual BofA was on the fragments we have, or on the rest of the papyri that were lost, or was the product of revelation, the outright rejection of all of those three in favor of it being a simple product of Joseph Smith's imagination - and, by association, not from God - is really the simple question in all of this. Did he clarify that in his writings in something I have not seen?

I'm not about to share information and/or pass judgment on David Wright and/or the Nashua Stake Priesthood leaders for an event that took place quite some time ago, in a difficult era. I am personally deeply saddened that David Wright and his family are no longer members of the Church.

It is indeed, sad, when something like this happens. I wish that David Wright, for his part, would have seen fit to not pass public judgment on those who he knew would be bound by policy not to respond.

Suffice it to say that I myself hold a deep spiritual conviction in the truthfulness of restored scripture and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm very grateful that today it's a new world for LDS graduate students in Bible and I believe that we as a Church have learned from our mistakes and are moving forward towards greatness. I would hope that in the future there will always be a place in the kingdom for those who hold non-traditional views, for when it comes right down to it, in one way or another, don't we all?

So the question remains: at what point does a "non-traditional view" become apostasy? Where is the line? While I greatly appreciate your perspective as you've expressed, and do not doubt you (nor have I inferred that, to make it clear), when a non-traditional view turns into a public questioning of all or significant parts of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, for instance, then there is going to be conflict. Differing viewpoints, even extensive ones, can always co-exist, as long as the basic foundations are intact. It's when those foundations are attacked that problems occur.

[David Bokovoy]

David B:

I think the contrast between your position as I understand it, and Wright's is clear

Quoting Wright:

Clearly he is not seeing the BOA as scriptural regardless of when it was "written" and is in fact retaining a rather literalistic interpretation of historicity which, unless I am mistaken, you do not.

I think it is clear that his view is "apostate" whereas yours is not. There is a big difference from what I think your view is.

Thanks for not believing I'm an apostate.

I guess maybe we're reading it differently. I simply see Wright saying that from his perspective, as a biblical scholar, the evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham is not historical, it may be inspired, but the evidence reveals that it's not historical. As a result, Latter-day Saints may need to take one of two approaches: 1. Revise our view regarding the revelatory process which would include the possibility that the papyri and the King James version of the Bible served as catalyses for Joseph's revelation, or 2. Demote the work from our canon.

Note that Wright did not say we should in fact demote the work from our canon.

His statement is really not that "apostate" of a claim.

Compare Wright, for example, with John Gee via the Church News report on Gee's FAIR Conference address:

"The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.

To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.

"This is what we as Latter-day Saints care about," he said. "It is what is important."

The critics may regard that as vain superstition, he said, "but they seem to deem it not even worthy of attack. What they attack is simply not important to the Latter-day Saints."

He said that is not to say Church members can or should forego the Book of Abraham, "but simply to give an idea of its relative importance. It is more important than some things and much less important than others."

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html