Backyard Professor Rips Apart Millet And Mcconkie'S Views.

[Rivers]

Mr. Shirts is quite harsh to Bob Millet and Joseph McConkie in his latest video. All though, I agree with and like everything he says. This video really demonstrates the disconnect between chapel mormonism and academic mormonism.

[Calm]

What's the topic?

[Rivers]

What's the topic?

Scholarship and scripture. Mr. Shirts think much more highly of scriptural scholarship than McConkie and Millet.

[coolrok7]

A letter of correction to an erring church member from a Mormon General Authority (written to Eugene England by Elder Bruce R. McConkie):

Dear Brother England: This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . .This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p. eight the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works (p.9). . . .

The "backyard professor" is not a General Authority is he?

This is irrelevant to the topic and only meant to derail. You are out of the thread.

[bluebell]

I love Robert Millet so i'm interested in watching the video, when i have time to see the whole thing.

[Rivers]

I love Robert Millet so i'm interested in watching the video, when i have time to see the whole thing.I

I love Robert Millet too so I was a bit shocked at how harshly he's criticized in this video.

[cdowis]

My experience with Kerry's videos is that his tone is influenced by Glenn Beck, which may work in the political arena.

Edited December 28, 2011 by cdowis

[Anijen]

I think Kerry is correct in that there does exist an anti-intellectualism in the church, and that presentism is widely used. Having said that I cannot help but think of the verse which says;

"Behold I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing."

(Mormon 8:35)

I feel the Book of Mormon is conceptualized through a modern day lenses, yet out of all historic books out there I believe it can exclusively be both harmonized in both ways, modern because it was written for us in these days, and through a scholarly study of it. Blessings will come from doing both. And yes Kerry was very harsh on these brethren (although he has some points, and may not be entirely wrong).

Edited December 28, 2011 by Anijen

[LeSellers]

I love Robert Millet so i'm interested in watching the video, when i have time to see the whole thing.

I love Robert Millet too so I was a bit shocked at how harshly he's criticized in this video.

We were roommates back in '70. I know him, although I've lost contact with him from time to time. (My fault no doubt, because I keep moving and he's been fairly stable.) I have and have read many of his books, and respect him.

One of the things that Kerry (or Midgely) points out is that the Millet/M^cConkie commentary is "pure Mormon pablum". Yet, when he was at the Y, Bob used to complain that there were a lot of his classmates who'd raise their hands and "comment": "I've always found that it's best to be good." I agree with his concern, but the pablum seems to have multiplied like loaves and fishes.

However, I agree with Brother Shirts, in that we cannot really understand scripture when our chronocentrism blocks or warps our views. That's why I just bought, for instance, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler's The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Jesus was a I Jew. Paul and Peter were, too. If we do not understand I Judaism, we cannot well understand Jesus', Peter's, or Paul's words. (So far, I am not terribly impressed, but I've only read through Luke, and haven't reached the essays yet. I did learn something new in re: the parable of the Good Samaritan, so it has not been a total waste of time and money. Does anyone have more experience with this book?)

Nephi gives us the key: "For I did liken all scriptures unto [myself], that it might be for [my] profit and learning."

Lehi

Edited December 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[ERayR]

My experience with Kerry's videos is that his tone is influenced by Glenn Beck, which may work in the political arena.

Was that supposed to denigrate Mr. Shirts or Mr. Beck? It speaks more about you than either one of those two.

Please clarify.

[Freedom]

Millet and McConkie are extremely intelligent and know more that I can ever dream to know or understand. Nevertheless, I have found their publications to be weighted down with old quotes and so-called traditional interpretations. They take a literal stance, as did Bruce McConkie, and they seem determined to produce material that are to serve as a guiding rode of how to interpret the scriptures.

I agree that the Nephites were no more mormon than was the church Jesus established.

[why me]

This video really demonstrates the disconnect between chapel mormonism and academic mormonism.

It is quite natural that there would be since very few people are intellectuals. The manuals are certainly not made for academic mormonism but rather for the average person who attends church. Since this is the case, the more academic need to go beyond the manual to set their curiosity in order. Academic mormonism is engaged in research and chapel mormonism is engaged in learning the what needs to be learned.

Edited December 28, 2011 by why me

[stemelbow]

Millet and McConkie are extremely intelligent and know more that I can ever dream to know or understand. Nevertheless, I have found their publications to be weighted down with old quotes and so-called traditional interpretations. They take a literal stance, as did Bruce McConkie, and they seem determined to produce material that are to serve as a guiding rode of how to interpret the scriptures.

I agree that the Nephites were no more mormon than was the church Jesus established.

I agree with the above. It seems to me that the position staked out by McConkie and Millet is arrived at by the attitude of we have been given answers--which we have. my concern here is there are still things left unanswered. I think it best we be open to finding correction and in turn be open to learning, growing and hopefully becoming.

[why me]

Was that supposed to denigrate Mr. Shirts or Mr. Beck? It speaks more about you than either one of those two.

Please clarify.

I think that he is refering to the tone of Kerry and Glenn. There tends to be a shouting tendency.

[BCSpace]

I must disagree with Kerry most strenuously about the "Mormonization of the Book of Mormon". He's going the wrong direction. The fact of the matter is that Mormons instead have been "Book of Mormonized" and yes, it is necessarily true that ancient theological truths will match modern theological truths. Obviously the ancients aren't going to have Relief Society or Boy Scouts for the Young Men or church ball (Presentism: the Mesoamerican version of church ball resulted in the deaths of the losers) or the three hour block. But their understanding of the Atonement, the Godhead, and Salvation etc. must of necessity be the same as ours since these truths do not change.

I also worry about his apparent agreement with the dichotomy presented that worship unites and doctrine divides. Jesus Christ himself was a divider and one cannot worship until one is "divided" out from the man-made doctrines and philosophies of the world. The only way not to have contention about the doctrine is for all to believe the same doctrine and worship (in the hierarchical Church sense) in the same way and that requires division.

I do agree that we have a certain presentism about the ancients and their scripture, but understanding Judaism to better understand the NT, for example, is not going to fundamentally change our current understanding of critical theological issues though such might certainly give some added depth and personal meaning. The reason why this is so is because much of our current understanding is from modern revelation. Is God going to reveal to us "moderns" something fundamentally different from what he revealed to the ancients? I think not.

The bottom line is that yes, Lehi, and Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Alma the Younger, Mormon and Moroni were indeed Mormons. They belonged to the same Church we belong to, though they may or may not have had more or less information and the earthly name of the Church might have been different. But nothing changes fundamentally in terms of doctrine or Gospel truths between their time and ours.

I do also agree that we must take it all as a whole and not concentrate on certain topics. All are interwoven.

I think Kerry's problem is doctrine which he says in the beginning of the video is not defined in the work in his hand which he is so excited about. His problem therefore becomes the same problem he says Millet and McConkie have in that they think they are preaching the "true doctrine of the kingdom" and disparage the "intellectuals". Isn't Kerry doing the same thing? The fact of the matter is that doctrine is defined by the Church and it's A-OKAY for Millet and McConkie to produce works that, in their opinion, harmonize with the Gospel and it is A-OKAY for Kerry to do the same, so long as all of them produce a disclaimer that they are not speaking for the Church. And since the Church has defined doctrine as official publication, there is a ready made disclaimer for every published work.

It is also A-OKAY for us to strongly disagree with such works because, after all, we are not disagreeing with anything doctrinal (yet). And as long as we do it in the spirit of fun and camaraderie, shouts of "Liar! Heathen!" can echo from the rooftops.

So each of these fine brethren, Kerry included, has something good and interesting to add to our understanding. Our duty then is to make sure we distinguish and compare with officially established doctrine so we don't lose our way and if any of these brethren succeed in persuading the Church to change the doctrine or it's teaching methodology, more power to them.

Heck, even I have a faint hope of one day writing the Church's position on Evolution one day into some manual.

Do we not come into apostasy if we ignore what the Church has established and ignore how doctrine comes about? Would that not tell us how little we actually accept the truth claims of the Church if we deign to present our own ideas as what the Church really means? Perhaps we all come under this condemnation to some degree or another but we can certainly discuss it here (somewhat).

Edited December 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[stemelbow]

A few years ago, the stake I was in at the time had a education weekend event. It was a nice event. Joseph McConkie came and spoke. I remember, after hearing him, having the same type of concerns as does Midgley and Kerry. I expressed that to a few of my friends who attended and they, for the most part, took it kindly. I'm very fond of the notion that we ought to seek out good and embrace it no matter from whence it came--and in this I would suggest truth is good.

[why me]

Millet and McConkie are extremely intelligent and know more that I can ever dream to know or understand. Nevertheless, I have found their publications to be weighted down with old quotes and so-called traditional interpretations. They take a literal stance, as did Bruce McConkie, and they seem determined to produce material that are to serve as a guiding rode of how to interpret the scriptures.

Academics tend to weigh down their texts with quotations to back up their argumentation. Sometimes old quotations are fine as long as something new comes from them. This is one way in which academics prove their propositions and supplement their creativity.

[why me]

The bottom line is that yes, Lehi, and Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Alma the Younger, Mormon and Moroni were indeed Mormons. They belonged to the same Church we belong to, though they may or may not have had more or less information and the earthly name of the Church might have been different. But nothing changes fundamentally in terms of doctrine or Gospel truths between their time and ours.

Actually they would be early saints. Mormon is a just a nickname for the lds. And the prophet mormon echoing Marx, was not a mormon as Marx claimed not to be a marxist.

[Emerson]

While I'm not always in Millet's corner, I still feel the need to point out that the 2000s Millet has somewhat distanced himself from the early 1990s Millet (the latter of which is most demonstrable in this BoM commentary and in the To Be Learned is Good if... book--both of wich had a definite anti-intellectual bent). Partly as a result of his growing inter-faith dialogue, and partly as a result of the rise of the now-named Maxwell institute, I don't think he'd maintain a lot of the views that Kerry accuses him of in this video. (Millet's intellectual movement also led to his alienation from McConkie.)

He's still very much a defender of orthodoxy--and I think he would proudly claim that title, too--but it's not the same neo-orthodoxy as demonstrated in this BoM commentary.

[why me]

He's still very much a defender of orthodoxy--and I think he would proudly claim that title, too--but it's not the same neo-orthodoxy as demonstrated in this BoM commentary.

This is perhaps true: A good scholar tends to progress with his or her research. Views or interpretations can be modified and yet still claim orthodoxy. It is only when the research heads outside the box or circle of thought that the claim to unorthodoxy can be asserted. But even here it may not be true.

Zizek once claimed that there are two forms of freedom: formal and authentic. Formal freedom is when people are engaged within the borders of what is expected. Authentic freedom is achieved when a person breaks free from the circle and can see the limitations of the circle and they produce something revolutionary. Perhaps we can say that when it came to christianity, Joseph Smith was engaged in authentic freedom.

Can we say that McConkie and Millet and Shirts are engaged in authentic freedom in their research?

Edited December 28, 2011 by why me

[Cobalt-70]

I agree that presentism is pervasive within Mormon scholarship, and is detrimental. But the problem is not that we fail to read the Book of Mormon in some mythical ancient Mesoamerican context. Rather, the problem is that we fail to read it within the 19th century New England Protestant context in which it was written. The Book of Mormon does not, actually, have much Mormonism in it. The book is thoroughly Protestant. The best way to get a deeper and, I think, more religiously beneficial understanding of the Book of Mormon is to learn about New England Protestantism circa the 1820s.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Loran Blood]

ERayR, on 28 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Was that supposed to denigrate Mr. Shirts or Mr. Beck? It speaks more about you than either one of those two.

Please clarify.

Kerry is not a conservative, and we have tangled on that score in years past, and I highly doubt - highly doubt - that Kerry has been influenced by Glenn Beck in any sense, as I doubt he has ever listened to him enough to be influenced by him (and if you insist on starting a Beck Bash, this thread will end badly)

Kerry has a very strong and wide ranging mind, and as an autodidact, he gives that term a good name and shows its potential outside the corrals of formal academia. On the other hand, in the years I've known and observed Kerry online, I have noticed a tendency to move in and out of certain intellectual preoccupations that seem to imbalance his perspective of the gospel and its core, uniting themes.. One year its Heavenly Mother and goddess symbolism. Another year its Quantum theory. At another time its atheism. At another point he's tarring and feathering anyone who appears to believe that God actually created anything as a "creationist."

In all honesty, while I'm sympathetic to Kerry's concern with anti-intellectualism in the church, as I do believe it exists and as I've encountered in on a number of occasions myself, I'm not sympathetic to the forging and creation of a artificial and unnecessary bifurcation between a small, lofty, intellectually enlightened elite of "academic" Mormons (smart people who are smart by virtue of their formal academic degrees or equivalent intellectual pursuits) and "Chapel" Mormonism, which the OP appears to make clear is really hoi polloi Mormonism.

It should be noted that it was precisely (among other variables) the overtaking of the primitive church by Alexandrian academics and a mentality that the Christian masses and their leaders were intellectual unsuited to the deep intellectual rigors of understanding the gospel they had embraced, that helped precipitate the utter destruction of the meridian Church. Coolrook's post about the letter to Eugene Englund was apropos. The Church's intellectuals, to the degree they, in any individual case really are such (serious thinkers), have an adjunct role in supporting, clarifying, and providing intellectual "fleshing out" of core doctrinal concepts and certainly their philosophical/theological implications. What they cannot and should not attempt, but which is clearly, after being associated with this forum for over a decade, a mouth watering temptations for some, is to determine for the Church and for the Brethren what the doctrines of the Church are, what the emphasis or focus of our doctrine should be, how specific scriptures/concepts should be interpreted, and,most of all, who is qualified to make these determinations.

All of this rests with the Lord's anointed servants in our time, and is clarified in numerous places within the scriptures, none of which mention advanced, strictly intellectual, scholarly knowledge of subject areas such as textual criticism, anthropology, archeology, or any other similar discipline as in any sense required to understand the gospel, and to understand it at a deep, profound, and indeed, transcendent level. Nowhere in the scriptures or in any writings of the Brethren of which I'm aware is advanced academic knowledge understood as a requirement of a substantive intellectual grasp of the core gospel doctrines that really matter, nor of one's ability to live the gospel once understood. It is always seen as a useful and productive appendage to revelation and faith, but not as a requirement for either one's own successful living of the gospel or of teaching it to others. I am not saying such knowledge is not good. l am not saying, indeed, that it is not better to have such knowledge than not to have it. I agree that the greater the knowledge we acquire in this life, the farther ahead we will be as we continue our progress in the next life. What I do not agree with is any claim that such advanced, intellectual understanding of secular subject matter that touches upon church teachings is primary, required, or mandatory or that those who have it are in some sense more spiritually advanced and, in some sense, more committed and serious Latter day Saints than those who do not acquire such knowledge. I am also highly dubious of anything that smacks of an attitude that LDS intellectuals/scholars should be consulted first, or taken more seriously than, the Lord's servants the Prophets on matters of doctrinal interpretation of the application of doctrine to contemporary issues.

There is a very real danger, as well, to which Church history well attests, of becoming enamored of our own alleged intellectual powers and abilities to the point that our intellects and the pursuit of tertiary studies and theoretical modeling in areas relevant to the gospel becomes primary, and we begin to rely, while bathing in our own sense of intellectual sophistication and educational depth, on the "arm of flesh" (intellect, logic, reason) over revelation. The very real danger of pride, an incipient intellectual snobbery, and a feeling of personal elitism among the "common" church members around us ("Chapel" Mormons) becomes a living possibility.

It should also be remembered that the concept of "Chapel" vs. "Internet" (i.e., educated, intellectual etc.) Mormonism is a concept birthed by one of our heartiest critics as an attempt to make common cause with September Six kinds of personalities and other examples of what they see as courageous, maverick intellectuals smothered and stifled by plebeian religious orthodoxy that cannot stand intellectual scrutiny.

Swim, as the saying goes, at your own risk, in these waters.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[BCSpace]

Perhaps we can say that when it came to christianity, Joseph Smith was engaged in authentic freedom.

But all he did was establish a new circle of "formal freedom"; the Restored Church. The real questions are did he do it with God's sanction and guidance and if so, is there any more "authentic" freedom to be had?

[zerinus]

Mr. Shirts is quite harsh to Bob Millet and Joseph McConkie in his latest video. All though, I agree with and like everything he says. This video really demonstrates the disconnect between chapel mormonism and academic mormonism.

I had a quick look at the article by Louis Midgley that Kerry Shirts was referring to; and while I agree for the most part with the criticism that Midgley makes of the Doctrinal Commentary, I am left a bit unsure whether his criticisms are directed at this kind of scripture "commentary;" or whether he is objecting to "doing theology" in the Church altogether. If it is the former, I would be inclined to agree with him for the most part; but if it is the latter, I would disagree. There is room for "theology" in the restored Church. For example, in his article Midgley writes:

A careful examination of the Book of Mormon, which seems to lack much that is familiar to Latter-day Saints, perhaps because of our neglect, points in a somewhat different direction, with its narrow conception of doctrine. The Book of Mormon, with its strict focus on Jesus Christ, rather than an expansive notion of doctrine composed of a complex assortment of details about the nature of divine and human things, turns our attention away from what are clearly theoretical questions that traditionally have constituted the substance of theology. In our urge for theology we are sometimes disappointed to find how little is said in the Book of Mormon that helps us fashion a system of doctrines that deal with the nature of God, or the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, original sin, the nature of man, and so forth, about which it is sometimes thought that Mormons have or at least should have detailed doctrines.

That I believe is a mistaken reading of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is as "theological" as the rest of the standard works are, and together with them provide a rich source of theology for Mormonism. If McConkie and Millet are "anti-intellectual," Midgley appears to be "anti-theological," and I can't see that one has any merit over the other.

With regards to Kerry Shirt's videos, while I find him a congenial character and enjoy listening to him, I think he does tend to go a bit overt the top, and frankly I have little of substance to look forward to in his remaining videos on the Book of Mormon which he claims will be presenting.

Edited December 29, 2011 by zerinus

[Loran Blood]

I agree that presentism is pervasive within Mormon scholarship, and is detrimental. But the problem is not that we fail to read the Book of Mormon in some mythical ancient Mesoamerican context. Rather, the problem is that we fail to read it within the 19th century New England Protestant context in which it was written. The Book of Mormon does not, actually, have much Mormonism in it. The book is thoroughly Protestant. The best way to get a deeper and, I think, more religiously beneficial understanding of the Book of Mormon is to learn about New England Protestantism circa the 1820s.

This begs far to many questions for a short reply, but suffice it to say that this is a textbook representation of the standard Dialogue/Signature Books narrative of BofM origins that stands as living testimony to the dangers, not of the intellect, but of its misuse once decoupled from revelation, testimony, and faith.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Loran Blood