Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[diglot]

Putting Archer and McDowell in the same league scholastically is bordering on the weird, as I'm sure even Josh would agree. Archer's educational credentials were irreproachable (PhD, Harvard University, and other degrees) and his academic work and knowledge quite impressive. He taught seven ancient languages and is reported to have spoken about thirty languages. A good bio of him is the notice of his passing in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (see here).

Maybe Archer has better educational credentials than McDowell, but regardless of that, they both produce Christian apologetical works that resort to dogmatism and circular reasoning, not to mention that they betray their lack of in-depth knowledge regarding various issues. That is why I put them on the same level.

It is one thing to disagree with Archer's stance on biblical inerrancy or to differ with him on some matter of interpretation. But when someone like you dismisses a scholar like Archer in such a smarty-pants, condescending manner, the obvious question that comes to my mind is, Just who in blazes are you?

I am no one, but I don't have to be some super intellect in order to recognize that Archer's work in Christian apologetics is not objective scholarship. It is dogmatism, plain and simple.

One of the examples Dan provided above is a perfect example:

The Hebrew Scriptures constitute the most trustworthy of all archaeological documents (since they are invested with a divine trustworthiness from beginning to end); and they state very clearly that Philistines lived in Philistia as early as the twenty-first century B.C.

That is horrible argumentation. It is dogmatism. It is circular reasoning. Whatever one wants to call it, it certainly isn't scholarship.

Edited October 26, 2011 by diglot

[Zakuska]

Fortunately for my conclusion, Catherine Aurelia/Athanasius/The Kings Servant/Carol has recently offered to dispense with the rhetorical middleman by just making the association explicit. These are the opening sentences of a thread started on another board:

Don't forget about this one...

Mormons may cry "foul" when we point out their heresies. They may become maniacal when we challenge the authority of Smith and disclose his real character. Sorry, Mormons, but I for one don't want your blood on my hands! May God lift the blinders from Mormons, and may the creation of Smith be disclosed for what it is - the antichrist invention of the Enemy of Christ.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[maklelan]

diglot,

You wrote:

Putting Archer and McDowell in the same league scholastically is bordering on the weird, as I'm sure even Josh would agree. Archer's educational credentials were irreproachable (PhD, Harvard University, and other degrees) and his academic work and knowledge quite impressive. He taught seven ancient languages and is reported to have spoken about thirty languages. A good bio of him is the notice of his passing in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (see here).

It is one thing to disagree with Archer's stance on biblical inerrancy or to differ with him on some matter of interpretation. But when someone like you dismisses a scholar like Archer in such a smarty-pants, condescending manner, the obvious question that comes to my mind is, Just who in blazes are you?

Archer got a PhD in Classics, which was one of several common routes taken by Evangelicals in the early and mid-twentieth century who wanted to get a high quality degree but wanted to avoid directly engaging critical issues in biblical scholarship. The "safe" disciplines were Classics, textual criticism, or ancient Near Eastern studies. The other route was to study at a conservative Jewish or a British institution where the focus would largely avoid those critical issues. This is the main reason the vast majority of fundamentalist approaches to things like JEDP and archaeology are based on distrust and fundamental misunderstandings of the methodologies used by critical scholars. Archer was among the older regime that didn't worry about trying to understand or apply the methodologies used by the scholars they were trying to contradict. He began studying Semitic languages after his PhD while taking one year to complete a BDiv at Princeton Theological Seminary.

His credentials aside, his scholarship is unquestionably fideistic and his methodologies are unquestionably unsound. His approach to Gen 6:2 alone shows that, whatever his competency with Semitic languages, they took a back seat to his presuppositionalism and fideism, to the point that he concocted a non-existent Hebrew witness to Deut 32:43 and then asserted completely unsupported interpretations.

[Zakuska]

My latest "infractions" from CARM calling Catherine on her Hypocrisy resulting in suspension, to add to the trophy case:

Dear Zakuska,

You have received an infraction at CARM, Christian Discussion Forums.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)

-------

Insulted Other Member(s)

-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

http://forums.carm.o...d.php?p=2206033

Originally Posted by Catherine Aurelia

You know, Zak, you might want to review the rules because personal insults are not allowed. Did you know that? Why am I being hypocritical? You have no answer do you pal? I laid it all out in the OP and you are afraid to address it - although not above making malicious and unfounded remarks about the poster. If you are too weak in your faith in Joe Smith to present an intelligent argument against the content of the OP, then leave, because you simply can't play with the big guys.How is it a "personal insult"?

Calling you on your hypocrisy is quite tame, compared to the abuse you spew on a regular basis toward Mormon posters here. (eg. "pal", "you athiest", "you pagan", "scholar", "liberal Christian" et al.) Even some non-mormon posters have noticed it as well. Just ask Markkkk, Martureo, and diglot.

Was Christ unable to "play with the big guys" when he called the Pharasees and Scribes on their hypocrisy?

Apparently, according to you he couldn't "present an intelligent argument".

You have failed to learn the lesson of the woman taken in adultury.

"People who live in glass cathedrals shouldn't throw stones."

All the best,

CARM, Christian Discussion Forums

Dear Zakuska,

You have received an infraction at CARM, Christian Discussion Forums.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)

-------

Insulted Other Member(s)

-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

http://forums.carm.o...d.php?p=2206033

Originally Posted by Catherine Aurelia

You know, Zak, you might want to review the rules because personal insults are not allowed. Did you know that? Why am I being hypocritical? You have no answer do you pal? I laid it all out in the OP and you are afraid to address it - although not above making malicious and unfounded remarks about the poster. If you are too weak in your faith in Joe Smith to present an intelligent argument against the content of the OP, then leave, because you simply can't play with the big guys.How is it a "personal insult"?

Calling you on your hypocrisy is quite tame, compared to the abuse you spew on a regular basis toward Mormon posters here. (eg. "pal", "you athiest", "you pagan", "scholar", "liberal Christian" et al.) Even some non-mormon posters have noticed it as well. Just ask Markkkk, Martureo, and diglot.

Was Christ unable to "play with the big guys" when he called the Pharasees and Scribes on their hypocrisy?

Apparently, according to you he couldn't "present an intelligent argument".

You have failed to learn the lesson of the woman taken in adultury.

"People who live in glass cathedrals shouldn't throw stones."All the best,

CARM, Christian Discussion Forums

I get an infraction yet the YAK and Father_JD get off scott free talking about male anatomy.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[diglot]

Archer got a PhD in Classics, which was one of several common routes taken by Evangelicals in the early and mid-twentieth century who wanted to get a high quality degree but wanted to avoid directly engaging critical issues in biblical scholarship. The "safe" disciplines were Classics, textual criticism, or ancient Near Eastern studies. The other route was to study at a conservative Jewish or a British institution where the focus would largely avoid those critical issues. This is the main reason the vast majority of fundamentalist approaches to things like JEDP and archaeology are based on distrust and fundamental misunderstandings of the methodologies used by critical scholars. Archer was among the older regime that didn't worry about trying to understand or apply the methodologies used by the scholars they were trying to contradict. He began studying Semitic languages after his PhD while taking one year to complete a BDiv at Princeton Theological Seminary.

His credentials aside, his scholarship is unquestionably fideistic and his methodologies are unquestionably unsound. His approach to Gen 6:2 alone shows that, whatever his competency with Semitic languages, they took a back seat to his presuppositionalism and fideism, to the point that he concocted a non-existent Hebrew witness to Deut 32:43 and then asserted completely unsupported interpretations.

Thanks for the background to Archer.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I've answered your CFR and gone to great lengths to provide you with a detailed answer to your question. Now I have some questions for you, pertaining to your recent posts.

• Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?
  
• Do you personally affirm or deny that the universe that we observe around us testifies to us that there is a God?
  
• Do you believe that human beings are qualitatively different from all other animal species on earth?
  
• In your opinion, are there absolute moral values that transcend changing cultures? If so, what would be an example of such a value? If not, what do you believe about moral values?
  
• Do you affirm or deny that Israelites enslaved in Egypt escaped from there and settled in Palestine in the second millennium BC?
  
• Do you believe that the following persons mentioned in the Bible were real historical persons: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon?
  
• Do you believe that the Book of Mormon figures of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman were real historical persons?
  
• Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal, historical event?
  

[Rob Bowman]

Apparently, it's easier, and a lot more fun, to skewer an evangelical layperson from another forum whose statements are often intemperate than to deal with the position taken by an evangelical scholar participating in this very forum. Actually, the situation is worse than that. Intemperate statements by such persons on other forums are being used to argue that the position I present here is not a genuine or honest position. It is just too rhetorically convenient to claim that no matter what I or other evangelicals say as to what we believe and what we mean by our words, what we really mean is to be learned from others, not from us. As I have often observed, and as some forum members here have actually stated explicitly, some Mormons prefer the more outlandish, uncharitable, and inaccurate expressions of "anti-Mormonism" because they are easier to criticize. Not only that, but then anyone else who dares to criticize LDS doctrines and claims is accused of being of the same ilk.

[Vance]

Apparently, it's easier, and a lot more fun, to skewer an evangelical layperson from another forum whose statements are often intemperate than to deal with the position taken by an evangelical scholar participating in this very forum.

False choice. Both are being done.

Actually, the situation is worse than that. Intemperate statements by such persons on other forums are being used to argue that the position I present here is not a genuine or honest position.

Do you totally reject the use of the word "cult" because of the obviously negative impression that it conveys, or will you continue to defend its usage with some rather flimsy and special pleading explanation?

As I have often observed, and as some forum members here have actually stated explicitly, some Mormons prefer the more outlandish, uncharitable, and inaccurate expressions of "anti-Mormonism" because they are easier to criticize.

Well, that is the more representative of the anti-Mormon approach. Even you have used inaccurate and uncharitable statements in your anti-Mormonisms.

Not only that, but then anyone else who dares to criticize LDS doctrines and claims is accused of being of the same ilk.

Right. Because you are so "above the fray" in your criticisms.

Que, Bowman posting one of his uncharacteristically positive pieces on Mormonism as evidence of his "fair and balanced" criticism.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[KevinG]

I would be interested in a response to Dan's 441-443 instead of pleading how unfair it is that the "man on the street" is being used as an indicator of Evangelical thought and belief.

Indeed everyone here has to deal with the fact that the common beliefs of the average member of their religion are not as nuanced or researched as apologists and professors of religion are. Those beliefs are what we face every day in our interactions with those of other faiths.

To assume the mantle of religious professor and conclude we represent our faith better than the average member is a form of pride and blindness. It is the other side of the coin of taking the most outrageous and inflammatory statements of dead prophets and ministers as proof of what someone "really teaches".

Edited October 26, 2011 by DaddyG

[David T]

Do you totally reject the use of the word "cult" because of the obviously negative impression that it conveys, or will you continue to defend its usage with some rather flimsy and special pleading explanation?

Vance, if I recall, Rob has stated numerous times here that he does reject the use of the word 'cult' in the popular context. He even has that as his published position, if I'm not mistaken.

[Vance]

Vance, if I recall, Rob has stated numerous times here that he does reject the use of the word 'cult' in the popular context. He even has that as his published position, if I'm not mistaken.

You may be right, I may be conflating his defense of excluding us from Christianity (by adding descriptors like "theologically" or "spiritually") with some other defense of the usage of "cult"

Although, your use of the word "numerous" is most likely mere inflation. I only found one here.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209056922

Where he said,

"I advocated that evangelicals stop using the term cult in a theological sense."

and,

"By no means do I advocate backing off calling a group a cult if they deserve the label. Some religions are cults in the most sinister sense possible. But you will rarely gain a hearing if you call someone’s religion a cult to their face."

Not really a solid rejection. More like "dog whistle" anti-Mormonism to me.

PS.

Bowman does say this,

Martin, Walter. Kingdom of the Cults. 5th rev. ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985. The last edition of this book produced while the author was still living. The classic evangelical textbook offering a polemical critique of the doctrines of various cults.

And,

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Although dated and limited in the number of groups examined, Hoekema’s book remains one of the most biblically and theologically astute textbooks on heretical Christian sects.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[David T]

You may be right, I may be conflating his defense of excluding us from Christianity (by adding descriptors like "theologically" or "spiritually") with some other defense of the usage of "cult"

Although, your use of the word "numerous" is most likely mere inflation. I only found one here.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209056922

Where he said,

"I advocated that evangelicals stop using the term cult in a theological sense."

and,

"By no means do I advocate backing off calling a group a cult if they deserve the label. Some religions are cults in the most sinister sense possible. But you will rarely gain a hearing if you call someone’s religion a cult to their face."

Not really a solid rejection. More like "dog whistle" anti-Mormonism to me.

There is certainly a difference in propriety between in-house use of language, and cross-cultural usage, where nuances will definitely be lost in translation. Popularly, cult means Jonestown, Branch Davidian, Hale Bopp.

"Cult" is a useful word in secular scholarship, and is used often used to refer to a religious movement without any sense of negative connotation. You will find LDS scholars speaking of the Jerusalem Temple Cult. Within the intended readership, it is understood that what is meant is not perjurative in any sense.

Edited October 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

nack,

I added this after your reply.

PS.

Bowman does say this,

Martin, Walter. Kingdom of the Cults. 5th rev. ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985. The last edition of this book produced while the author was still living. The classic evangelical textbook offering a polemical critique of the doctrines of various cults.

And,

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Although dated and limited in the number of groups examined, Hoekema’s book remains one of the most biblically and theologically astute textbooks on heretical Christian sects.

Those sound like ringing endorsements.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[volgadon]

Does he use the term cult of his own group (evangelicals)?

[Zakuska]

Does he use the term cult of his own group (evangelicals)?

Not sure, but the word equally applies to 'Evangelical' as well as the SBC.

In fact... the SBC is often called a Cult. One of the reasons they are contemplating a name change and reorganization.

http://www.bpnews.ne...ws.asp?ID=36157

Edited October 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

I don't think we need to go into the rather common association of "cult" with Mormonism (in the non "theological" sense) on the official web site of Bowman's employer, do we?

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[maklelan]

Dan,

I've answered your CFR and gone to great lengths to provide you with a detailed answer to your question. Now I have some questions for you, pertaining to your recent posts.

Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?

Yes, and I don't know yet. It's not explained anywhere, and I'm not going to allow dogmatism to overrule what I find the evidence to indicate.

Do you personally affirm or deny that the universe that we observe around us testifies to us that there is a God?

It depends on one's worldview. Before we had the ability to explain a lot of natural phenomena some sentient being exercising control over the natural world was the better explanation, but now that we can explain a lot of it, the world doesn't make so little sense that we have to posit that sentient being.

Do you believe that human beings are qualitatively different from all other animal species on earth?

That depends on what you mean by "qualitatively different." I believe we share a special relationship with God that all other animal life does not share, but that's a faith claim. I can't point to any evidence of that.

In your opinion, are there absolute moral values that transcend changing cultures? If so, what would be an example of such a value? If not, what do you believe about moral values?

That depends on the source of one's ethical system, and I haven't really committed myself to a single system yet. Having said that, I think there are a limited few values that should transcend culture, but they are far from black and white. As an example, murder ought to be a violation of any proper system of ethics, but one would have to define "murder" in such a way that it excluded killing that could be justified by a given system, and one could think of a number of circumstances that could justify it.

Do you affirm or deny that Israelites enslaved in Egypt escaped from there and settled in Palestine in the second millennium BC?

I don't know. I don't think its unlikely that there were some people living as slaves in Egypt who escaped and made their way to Syria-Palestine, but the evidence in no way supports a mass exodus that fully constituted the subsequent nation of Israel.

Do you believe that the following persons mentioned in the Bible were real historical persons: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon?

I don't know about Abraham, Moses, or Joshua, but I think David and Solomon were likely historical figures.

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon figures of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman were real historical persons?

I don't know. There's nothing in the material evidence that would compel one to believe they were.

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal, historical event?

I believe this as a matter of faith. There is no evidence for the event outside of my own personal spiritual experience praying about it, though.

Now, what is the point of asking these questions?

[maklelan]

Apparently, it's easier, and a lot more fun, to skewer an evangelical layperson from another forum whose statements are often intemperate than to deal with the position taken by an evangelical scholar participating in this very forum.

I deal with both insofar as they will deal with me, and Carol has stated that her research regarding Mormonism has been published in academic circles (although she obviously won't point me to it). She claims to be academically minded and she claims to know much more about religious studies (and sociology!) than me. Also Carol represents a large portion of the Evangelical community which is currently the most vocal vis-à-vis the question of Mormonism's relationship to Christianity.

Actually, the situation is worse than that. Intemperate statements by such persons on other forums are being used to argue that the position I present here is not a genuine or honest position.

My post wasn't intended to directly confront your type of approach to the question, although I stand firmly by my conclusion that any use of the word "cult" outside of the secular use ("cult" as a system of religious practices) in reference to a religion is sectarian and emotive, and rests in a significant way, irrespective of any stated qualifications, on the pejorative connotations of the word. If anyone disagrees then I would invite them to prove they do not intend to appeal to the baggage the term carries by using another term, like New Religious Movement, or sect, or something else that is current among scholars. I've never met someone who was willing to make the change, and the obvious reason is that New Religious Movement doesn't carry the rhetorical sting that "cult" does.

It is just too rhetorically convenient to claim that no matter what I or other evangelicals say as to what we believe and what we mean by our words, what we really mean is to be learned from others, not from us.

A legitimate concern, and let's observe what happens when we make a small replacement here:

It is just too rhetorically convenient to claim that no matter what I or other Mormons say as to what we believe and what we mean by our words, what we really mean is to be learned from the Journal of Discourses/Mormon Doctrine/The Seer, not from us.

Latter-day Saints have to deal with the same accusations all the time. Irrespective, I deal directly with you and your concerns as much as possible. In the instance of my previous post I was directly addressing Carol.

As I have often observed, and as some forum members here have actually stated explicitly, some Mormons prefer the more outlandish, uncharitable, and inaccurate expressions of "anti-Mormonism" because they are easier to criticize. Not only that, but then anyone else who dares to criticize LDS doctrines and claims is accused of being of the same ilk.

I don't believe that I unfairly lump people together as anti-Mormons, but I do consolidate those who take the same approaches to the same questions and appeal to the same rhetoric.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

If you don’t have any idea what it means to affirm that the Bible (or any other scripture) is the word of God, and you aren’t even sure that Abraham, Moses, or Nephi existed, it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive. If Abraham, Moses, or Nephi did not exist, then the “ancient” LDS scriptures (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the Book of Mormon) are a massive hoax or fraud from beginning to end. (They might still be a massive hoax or fraud even if, as I believe, Abraham and Moses were real people, but they certainly must be a hoax or fraud if those men did not exist.) Thus, there really should not be any room for agnosticism in a Mormon context about the reality of those ancient figures.

There’s really no point in giving lip service to Scripture being the “word of God” if this doesn’t have any positive meaning for you. I’m very sorry for you, Dan, because from my perspective your affiliation with the LDS religion is far less troubling than your skepticism and doubts about many basic beliefs that evangelicals and most Mormons have in common. A number of your fellow LDS here applaud you when you attack biblical inerrancy, but I wonder if they understand that your method casts dark shadows of doubt over their own most cherished beliefs. They may feel that your attacks on the reliability of the Bible are polemically useful against evangelical “anti-Mormons” and open the door for the LDS brand of fideism in which one “knows” by spiritual experience alone that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was God’s prophet, and that the LDS Church is the one true church. In reality, though, you aren’t even sure that the events reported in Book of Mormon actually occurred or that its prophets were real people. In my opinion, a critical method that turns the Bible into Swiss cheese will blow the Book of Mormon to dust. You’re very clear and even imperiously dogmatic about what you don’t believe (especially that the Bible is historically accurate, let alone inerrant), but when asked about your own positive beliefs on very basic theological issues you are noncommittal and unsure (so that all of your answers were, in your own words, “That depends” or “I don’t know”). I’m very glad you still believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, but if you ever apply the same method to those facts that you do to the rest of the Bible the result is also likely to be negative.

I have been engaging liberal and skeptical biblical scholarship for 37 years, and I have spent a lot more time dealing with issues in that area than I have dealing with LDS issues. I’m very comfortable dealing with the sorts of issues that you raise, although my specialization in biblical studies is New Testament (whereas yours is Old Testament). I am also very used to the condescending attitudes of non-evangelicals toward my conservative view of Scripture. But I sincerely see your usual line of attack as a distraction from the discussion of issues dividing Mormons from evangelicals. My purpose and intent here on this forum is to engage believing Latter-day Saints on theological and historical issues dividing them from evangelicals. That is why I decline to engage you in a protracted debate about biblical inerrancy—because your method and arguments you make superficially look like they’re merely about critiquing biblical inerrancy when in fact your method undermines the very credibility of the LDS faith just as much as it does the evangelical view of the Bible. In addition, such a debate places us in the continual pattern of me supposedly needing to defend practically everything I believe (even things that most Mormons believe) and you taking a positive stand for nothing. That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own. When I engage LDS here in discussion or debate, whatever negative conclusions I present about LDS doctrines or claims are made in the interests of defending a positive, robust, and well-defined evangelical Christian belief system. In fact a large fraction, perhaps a majority, of my posts here have focused on explicating or defending some aspect of evangelical belief (e.g., the Trinity, the Bible as the complete canon of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, etc.).

Nothing I have said here is meant to imply that you aren’t free to post whatever you like or to employ whatever method you choose. I am simply trying to give my own perspective on our discussions to date and to explain why I am reluctant to spend a great deal of time here addressing your numerous objections to my view of the Bible. I also think it would be healthy for the other LDS here to take a more careful look at your method and conclusions, as I think they are devastating not just to my view of the Bible but even more so to their view of the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive..

It is so not your place to even suggest this.

[volgadon]

It is so not your place to even suggest this.

It is a very low way to avoid answering Mak's points.

[David T]

it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive..

As someone who holds many of the same conclusions as Mak, I also find this statement of yours extremely unjustifiable.

I was born into a Pentecostal Evangelical household with a very fundamentalist view of scripture. When I converted to LDS, much of that view remained. Over the years, my conclusions, paradigms, and worldview has changed.

I find my faith in God and my utility of scripture - both biblical and LDS-specific (including but not limited to Moses, Abraham, and the Book of Mormon) - to be far more substantive now than it ever has been previously. I find it, and the ritual extensions of the faith in the ordinances - extraordinarily powerful, and highly influential on my very worldview. I am drawn more to Christ and learning from Him than I feel I ever have been in the past.

One's view of the degree of historicity or authorship of sacred narratives does not need, in any way, to take away from the inspiration, power, and effect they have on one's life and relationship to and with God.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

You’re very clear and even imperiously dogmatic about what you don’t believe (especially that the Bible is historically accurate, let alone inerrant), but when asked about your own positive beliefs on very basic theological issues you are noncommittal and unsure (so that all of your answers were, in your own words, “That depends” or “I don’t know”). I’m very glad you still believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, but if you ever apply the same method to those facts that you do to the rest of the Bible the result is also likely to be negative.

This is an expression of honesty, based on diligent - and faithful - research. As comforting as it may be for some to be rock-solid convinced on such topics, as nice as it may be for some people to have no really important or deep questions in mind when they ritually perform their daily scripture reading already confident in their arsenal of ready-made answer and pigeon-hole for everything being read, I find something powerful and strangely comforting about unanswered questions and contradiction in scripture. Knowing that even those who it seems are closest to God still were working things out, and learning, and grasping. I love this. I am encouraged by this.

I find, in the LDS Church, a powerful restoration of the ancient prophetic model. The more I learn about the historic creation of scripture and other sacred writing, the more I see and understand the prophetic modus operandi and mindset -- the more I see the same patterns of production in the modern scriptural texts.

Some see this, and view it all as a hoax, from beginning to end. I see this, and find a consistent and practical, and very real (and gritty!) pattern and method of grasping at and expressing revealed divinity.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Vance]

If you don’t have any idea what it means to affirm that the Bible (or any other scripture) is the word of God, and you aren’t even sure that Abraham, Moses, or Nephi existed, it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive.

Humm,

I don't recall those things being asked or required in Baptismal interviews or Temple interviews.

[diglot]

I deal with both insofar as they will deal with me, and Carol has stated that her research regarding Mormonism has been published in academic circles (although she obviously won't point me to it). She claims to be academically minded and she claims to know much more about religious studies (and sociology!) than me.

haha, I find it hard to believe she has published academically on anything.