The Practical Maxwell Questions Not Being Addressed

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Very interesting, Kerry. A lot of food for thought there. Thanks for sharing.

My problem is I over read Hugh Nibley for years, and it was he who helped me gain an enormous interest (and respect) for the Biblical scholarship...... and now church to me seems so.......um........well, what else can I say? Lame in its teaching. And the sad thing is it simply does not have to be this way.

[morgan.deane]

I have to echo Brant and David's comments. I am relatively late in my interest in FARMS. Outside of reading some Nibldy on my mission it started in 2007 when I read Sorenson's Ancient American Setting and then really took off in 2008 when my I started my graduate degree in military history. When I started producing research into the BoM worthy of publishing I found that the Journal of BoMS didn't really seem interested (and it soon changed to reflect its broader mission). So I was left with a vast library of old material that seemed amazing. This included Warfare in the Book of Mormon, but also volumes such as Echoes and Evidences, King Benjamin's Speech, and early editions of the journal. But by the time I got my first manuscript ready for publication last year I didn't even consider FARMS as an outlet. So this change basically confirmed what I already sensed, that I should look elsewhere to publish my material and that I shouldn't expect much more of the "old stuff." That is very sad to me, because it was the publications from people like Peterson, Hamblin, and Sorenson in the FARMS old guard that inspired my interest in the field.

[Bill Hamblin]

As one who has published both with FARMS and the Maxwell Institute, I will go on record and share my opinion on this matter.

Speaking personally, over the years, I've especially felt the loss of FARMS' Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as edited by Stephen Ricks, and John Sorenson. I'll confess that this has been somewhat of a personal loss for me, in the sense that the scholarship and articles it originally published were what inspired me to pursue my graduate work in the first place and by which I've patterned my own writings, including that little book I put together several years ago with Tvedtnes.

By design, the current Maxwell journal that has taken its place is both non-academic and non-specialized. I hate to make this sound personal, but over the years, those in charge of the journal have solicited articles from me, only to turn them down because they were not written for an "early morning seminary teacher audience." In sharing this information, I'm not trying to be critical, because as a professional religious instructor myself, I sincerely appreciate what they're trying to accomplish. But in my estimation, this transition has left a serious void.

I spoke with Dan about this several years ago, and he shared with me that he, Lou, and George agreed with my assessment, which is why they were beginning to place Journal of Book of Mormon Studies type articles in the Review. This was wonderful while it lasted, but clearly now this will no longer take place, since as I understand it, the Review will be devoted to another purpose entirely.

I would also like to state that I am proud of the two articles I published in the Review. One was an apologetic response to the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon DVD, and the other a polite scholarly exchange with biblical scholar Michael Heiser.

Over the years, I have become less and less interested in traditional apologetics, and because of my wiliness to opening engage scholarly issues in my field that present challenges to various issues connected with the Restoration, I have received my own "wounds," from "friendly fire," the details of which, I have no intention of discussing in public. I will state, however, without trying to be too critical, that I have little confidence in the general abilities of BYU's new direction personnel (speaking as a whole, not of individuals, many of whom if given the chance are more than capable) to seriously engage academic issues pertaining to the Book of Mormon, etc.

This is certainly not the objective of BYU's Religious Education. In fact, given the department's general opposition to scholarship, as well as the general lack of personnel trained in these various fields, I have a hard time seeing how this new direction will take place at BYU in terms of scholarly observations on the Bible, Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. While the MI will hopefully make some important contributions in the future to Mormon studies, sadly, I suspect that most of the quality work in these areas will take place in independent spheres outside of BYU.

Finally, I will also go on record as stating that I am proud to be both a student, and a friend of Daniel Peterson. Both he and his work have had a tremendous impact upon my life, and I believe that over the years, Dan has made outstanding contributions to Mormon studies. In fact, some of my favorite observations that have been made regarding the Book of Mormon have been Dan's.

Just so.

[Bill Hamblin]

That has been my impression, without as much evidence as you have. My own work on the Book of Mormon springs directly from that of John Sorenson and has been bolstered by the kind of work that was done earlier in FARMS existence (and a needed not to Faulconer's book on how to study the scriptures, printed under FARMS). Perhaps because I am so completely focused on the Book of Mormon, I have noticed that the Maxwell Institute's production of really new work on the Book of Mormon has slowed to a trickle.

It is unfortunate that the timing of this change at the Maxwell Institute follows the issue of an article discussion John Dehlin. That has allowed the false impression that the issues surrounding that article caused the current change. Whatever influence it may or may not have had, it cannot be causative of the current change. It has been a change in process for way too long.

While I hold out hope that there will be a place for cutting edge scholarship on the Book of Mormon in the new direction of the Maxwell Institute, the evidence of past redirected efforts is not encouraging.

Yup

[Aliwe]

One does wonder and shake their head at times don't they? Why is ir so hard for some to connect the dots? To paraphrase - the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

To make the kingship of God Most High present, forget about the differences between Liberal and Orthodox. If you love your enemies as much as you love your friends, then your enemy will become your friend, and he will be destroyed as your enemy. For I say unto you that many Liberals shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the second life. But many of the Orthos shall not attain to the second life, because they do not make present the kingship of our Father in heaven.

[David T]

So..wait. Let me try to get this straight, based on what I've seen from Kerry and Brant. Is the expectation that a Bradford-led NAMI would be more conservative and correlated, this losing its bite? That appears to be the opposite of the impression I had been left with, that the suggestion was the new direction would be more liberal, and less in line with supporting the correlated doctrine.

Edited June 24, 2012 by David T

[wenglund]

To make the kingship of God Most High present, forget about the differences between Liberal and Orthodox. If you love your enemies as much as you love your friends, then your enemy will become your friend, and he will be destroyed as your enemy.

Jesus loved the Scribes, Saducees, and Pharisees, and of course they all became his best friends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kolipoki09]

I think what originally set the Review apart from other LDS-oriented journals was its emphasis (and not exclusively) on apologetics. I fail to see how the new direction of the Review is really any different from that of BYU Studies, Dialogue, and to a lesser extent, Sunstone, the Journal of Mormon History, and the Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies. I certainly believe these outlets are valuable to Mormon scholarship as a whole, however, I don't think pulling the plug on the Review's original mission was warranted. That's just my opinion, and others are welcome to disagree with me.

Has anyone here actually seen the article about Dehlin? Did Dehlin himself? I'm willing to venture a guess and say it's a resounding "no!" all around. I think it's entirely likely that a General Authority's pressure in response to complaints from Dehlin and his followers was one of probably several factors that led to Peterson's dismissal. However, I think it's important to remember, in the words of the always delightful Kristine Haglund, that "Mormons of all stripes excel at amplifying every stray word that falls from a [General Authority's] lips as confirmation of their personal agenda."

It's all rather sad to be honest. I find myself very much in agreement with what David Bokovoy and Brant Gardner have offered in this thread.

Edited June 24, 2012 by kolipoki09

[ANACO]

That has been my impression, without as much evidence as you have. My own work on the Book of Mormon springs directly from that of John Sorenson and has been bolstered by the kind of work that was done earlier in FARMS existence (and a needed not to Faulconer's book on how to study the scriptures, printed under FARMS). Perhaps because I am so completely focused on the Book of Mormon, I have noticed that the Maxwell Institute's production of really new work on the Book of Mormon has slowed to a trickle.

It is unfortunate that the timing of this change at the Maxwell Institute follows the issue of an article discussion John Dehlin. That has allowed the false impression that the issues surrounding that article caused the current change. Whatever influence it may or may not have had, it cannot be causative of the current change. It has been a change in process for way too long.

While I hold out hope that there will be a place for cutting edge scholarship on the Book of Mormon in the new direction of the Maxwell Institute, the evidence of past redirected efforts is not encouraging.

I too will miss cutting edge scholarship on the Book of Mormon in the new direction of the Maxwell Institute. The old was much better.

It was indeed soul-expanded to learn that Nephi imported coconuts from India. Such cutting edge scholarship will be sorely missed.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

So..wait. Let me try to get this straight, based on what I've seen from Kerry and Brant. Is the expectation that a Bradford-led NAMI would be more conservative and correlated, this losing its bite? That appears to be the opposite of the impression I had been left with, that the suggestion was the new direction would be more liberal, and less in line with supporting the correlated doctrine.

I don't have any insider information.....what I am simply saying is that IF Bradford is serious about being more secular, and if that secular and academic approach is what he aims for while kicking out information on the Bible, he better be ready to do it the Bible scholars' way with THEIR information and research without the Mormon assumptions, interpretations and ideas. All I am saying is Bradford needs to think COMPLETELY through the implication that he wants things more secular than it has been. I, for one, would think it would make fascinating reading if that is the case, because I do read the secular Biblical scholars and they have some incredibly fascinating views of the Bible that we Mormons cannot even fathom the ideas they have discovered and taught and written about, because we are very seldom encouraged to do or read anything otside our own Mormon tradition. Contrary to the judgments on that other board that cannot be named, I am not slandering Bradford, I am warning him (not that he'll ever read anything I write, of course) that if that is his choice of venues, he better do it right, the world will be watching and judging the accuracy.

[mfbukowski]

I know from personal experience, and I will be more than happy to demonstrate it on these boards, and you will see the saints flying to pieces like glass and condemning me for simply sharing the secular.

I have experienced this myself- it is shocking to me to see virtually no understanding of secular philosophy here, and the flak I get for posting what is nearly universally taught in secular universities and has been for at least the last 150 years. Even those elements which are totally compatible with Mormonism are not recognized as such because we are so culturally immersed old Christian theology based in Scholasticism- precisely the kind of thinking that the Restoration was supposed to eliminate.

It's sad to say, but there is unquestionably still a very anti-intellectual bias certainly at least toward the "philosophies of men" and a lack of recognition that unfortunately the only options we have are indeed the philosophies of men, since God himself is one. Humanism in any form is condemned, and yet what we clearly are, is theistic humanists. We place at the core of our beliefs the most incredible "human potential movement" ever conceived - the idea that humans can become gods, and yet we do not understand all that goes with it.

[Storm Rider]

I've actually thought about joining a bible study class, when I mentioned it to another member, they about had a heart attack. I guess b/c the teachings in the churches would be so differently held.

My mom always told me that you cannot go down the chimney without getting any soot on you. Should you join a bible study group? Sure, find a good group of people you click with and study away. You will be surprised at wonderful it is to see others that are just as enthused about the scriptures as you are. In addition, you will learn things, different ways of interpreting the scriptures that are not wrong, just different. The differences within the Christian religion revolve around scripture interpretation. There are over 36,000 different denominations and all of them have the same bible. Can you learn a false interpretation? Of course, but that should not stop you from studying the bible, but you should use caution and remember where the source of all truth is found, the Holy Spirit. When confused, study, contemplate, seek answers form those who know, and pray.

[jwhitlock]

I have experienced this myself- it is shocking to me to see virtually no understanding of secular philosophy here, and the flak I get for posting what is nearly universally taught in secular universities and has been for at least the last 150 years. Even those elements which are totally compatible with Mormonism are not recognized as such because we are so culturally immersed old Christian theology based in Scholasticism- precisely the kind of thinking that the Restoration was supposed to eliminate.

It's sad to say, but there is unquestionably still a very anti-intellectual bias certainly at least toward the "philosophies of men" and a lack of recognition that unfortunately the only options we have are indeed the philosophies of men, since God himself is one. Humanism in any form is condemned, and yet what we clearly are, is theistic humanists. We place at the core of our beliefs the most incredible "human potential movement" ever conceived - the idea that humans can become gods, and yet we do not understand all that goes with it.

This would be something interesting to explore in more detail, since it is so incredibly complex. The conflicts between intellectuals and other groups is not a uniquely LDS phenomenon.

If you got a thread going on this, I'd probably chirp in with something.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

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

Kerry,

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

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

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

[BCSpace]

This is required reading for those who want to know more...

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640

It seems very similar to the US court system accepting/incorporating rulings and precedence from other countries:

The issue of what individuals bring to their studies and how they will conduct them also applies, of course, to LDS scholars. In regard to this group, two factors will likely impact future study. Until recently, most scholarly work on Mormonism has been done by Latter-day Saints. Their primary audience has been other interested Latter-day Saints. This is bound to change as study of the tradition moves into other venues. In the meantime, LDS academics will need to come to terms with how best to incorporate their scholarship with that which is being produced by colleagues who are not insiders.70 In addition, LDS scholars do not always agree on important matters having to do with the tradition. Just as it is commonplace today to find, for instance, religious Jews classifying themselves as either Orthodox or conservative at one end of the spectrum or as Reformed or liberal at the other, depending on how they resolve key issues about their tradition, so it is among devout LDS scholars who view and understand their own faith differently. Some emphasize certain beliefs to the diminution of others, value the ritual dimension of the faith differently, read and interpret the scriptures in certain ways, tell the history of the faith differently, and search for and find ways of reconciling their faith with the contemporary world that are pronouncedly at odds with how others do this. Differences such as these are bound to play a role in the academic study of Mormonism and in the kind of results that are produced.

In other words, he feels LDS scholarship should not be driven by the Church or believers? Secondarily, if that is applied to the internal questions of Orthodox or conservative vs. Reformed or liberal, then those questions would be decided by outsiders. If true, the fruits of this can only be apostasy.

Edited June 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[rameumptom]

Tacenda,

Our Church tends toward the very basics in its teachings, due to correlation, the quantity of new members, etc. The doctrine is like an ocean, unfortunately we find that correlation and many others have written LDS books and manuals to skip stones across that ocean, instead of diving deep into the waters. I'm talking doctrine, not speculation. You will notice, for example, that the Sunday School and PH/RS classes tend to rush from one point to the next with each new lesson. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we spent several weeks researching topics, such as faith or the atonement? But we don't get that in any of our correlated programs. So, members must look elsewhere for deeper discussions on doctrine.

One of the problems is most of our Sunday School teachers have been raised and bred to teach only very basic concepts, and so cannot really do quality textual criticism of the scriptures. We miss out on symbolism, connections, history, and many other dynamics of the scriptures due to this shallow (but seemingly safe) approach. I'd love for us to return to using Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon as a manual, just so members can get a taste of some scholarship (even though it is 50 years old).

If MI takes the MSR into a "safe for seminary teachers" dumbed down version, then we will not see anything of real value come from it. If they take it into the secular arena, as Kerry fears, then it will also become useless for LDS members, as few will wish to read it.

Rameumptom

Why don't we devote more class time to study the bible, verse by verse and maybe take two or three years on it or as long as it takes instead of only studying it every 3 or 4 years? And give the same time to the BOM. It would help me with studying b/c I'm pretty lame at deciphering what so much of it means. Anyone care to comment? Or would this derail the topic?

[ERayR]

To make the kingship of God Most High present, forget about the differences between Liberal and Orthodox. If you love your enemies as much as you love your friends, then your enemy will become your friend, and he will be destroyed as your enemy. For I say unto you that many Liberals shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the second life. But many of the Orthos shall not attain to the second life, because they do not make present the kingship of our Father in heaven.

One does not have to surrender to the enemies of the church to love them. That is not doing them any favor nor is it being true to oneself or the church. The most loving thing one can do for the enemies of the church is to confront their error so that they too can change.

Edited June 25, 2012 by ERayR

[rameumptom]

One does wonder and shake their head at times don't they? Why is ir so hard for some to connect the dots? To paraphrase - the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Unless you are from south eastern Kentucky, then the friend of your enemy may be your first cousin....

[Tacenda]

Tacenda,

Our Church tends toward the very basics in its teachings, due to correlation, the quantity of new members, etc. The doctrine is like an ocean, unfortunately we find that correlation and many others have written LDS books and manuals to skip stones across that ocean, instead of diving deep into the waters. I'm talking doctrine, not speculation. You will notice, for example, that the Sunday School and PH/RS classes tend to rush from one point to the next with each new lesson. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we spent several weeks researching topics, such as faith or the atonement? But we don't get that in any of our correlated programs. So, members must look elsewhere for deeper discussions on doctrine.

One of the problems is most of our Sunday School teachers have been raised and bred to teach only very basic concepts, and so cannot really do quality textual criticism of the scriptures. We miss out on symbolism, connections, history, and many other dynamics of the scriptures due to this shallow (but seemingly safe) approach. I'd love for us to return to using Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon as a manual, just so members can get a taste of some scholarship (even though it is 50 years old).

If MI takes the MSR into a "safe for seminary teachers" dumbed down version, then we will not see anything of real value come from it. If they take it into the secular arena, as Kerry fears, then it will also become useless for LDS members, as few will wish to read it.

Rameumptom

What do you think of other churches that have women's bible classes? I'm a Utahn and surrounding me are several churches that have a weekly bible class for women. I'm afraid I'd give LDS a bad name if I showed up there. I don't know my bible. I don't think it's as emphasised to read, as much as the BOM.

During the year that we were studying the Old Testament, I attended Ward Council mtngs on monthly basis. And at the top of the handout of meeting topics from the bishop, it had this goal listed: "Read the Book of Mormon" This happened at the beginning of my faith crisis and after I had found out about some church history that I didn't like. I really wanted to yell out to the bishop, "Why are you telling me to read the BOM, when it's the year for the "Old Testament", why not have that listed at the top?".

Some might think that I'm lazy for not reading the bible on my own. My question is why have Sunday School then? GD class is there to help us get through the scriptures.

Now I think I have the answer to my question. I think the bible class in GD has to be correlated so much b/c it contadicts some of our LDS beliefs. We aren't able to go verse by verse.

[rameumptom]

To make the kingship of God Most High present, forget about the differences between Liberal and Orthodox. If you love your enemies as much as you love your friends, then your enemy will become your friend, and he will be destroyed as your enemy. For I say unto you that many Liberals shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the second life. But many of the Orthos shall not attain to the second life, because they do not make present the kingship of our Father in heaven.

It has little to do with orthodox and liberal. There are liberals that support FARMS defense of the Church. As for the enemies, would you think that Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ tried to love their enemies? If so, then why were both killed? Why didn't those enemies become their friends?

Is it because Jesus and Joseph really were haters and not lovers? Or is it that your statement is shallow and not based upon any real premise?

As it is, when you look at the anti-Mormon sites, I would venture that many are liberals. I do not see them as sitting down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, unless they believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and partake of the ordinances and covenants of the restored gospel. The reality is, people like Kevin Graham (who once wrote for FARMS, but now writes against the Church) are not interested in being friends with LDS, unless we surrender and run away from our testimonies of the gospel.

Singing "Kumbaya" just will not work in the real world we live in. God may love all his children, but he still cast Satan out of his presence. They do not barbecue together on the weekends, and while we should be "bold but not overbearing", I would rather be overbearing on occasion than anti-LDS all the time.

As it is, in regards to people like Bradford, I do not consider him my enemy. I do consider him a righteous LDS member with a personal agenda. That said, I also consider him as over-reaching and trying to create a fiefdom of his own making, while destroying a long respected LDS organization that he does not like. That will not endear him with the average Mormon (who is orthodox and conservative), but does have anti-Mormons dancing in the streets, believing the Church and Dan Peterson have been dealt a death blow by one of its own.

[rameumptom]

Kerry, do you think that Bradford is willing to actively approve articles on things like the Documentary Hypothesis, Paul's extreme saved by grace, that the original Christians did not believe in a divine Jesus as God, that the prophecies of isaiah had nothing to do with Jesus, that resurrection and heaven were late developments, and etc?

If you want to take Bible scholarship from the main players seriously, then we cannot have anyone quoting Margaret Barker, Levenson, or NB Wright. Yet, those are the ones many LDS scholars now go to in order to support an LDS reading of the Bible! So, I agree with your concern here. Maybe he will just stop publishing the journal altogether, in order to protect his decision to kill FARMS and still keep the Church's scholarship intact?

Ram

I don't have any insider information.....what I am simply saying is that IF Bradford is serious about being more secular, and if that secular and academic approach is what he aims for while kicking out information on the Bible, he better be ready to do it the Bible scholars' way with THEIR information and research without the Mormon assumptions, interpretations and ideas. All I am saying is Bradford needs to think COMPLETELY through the implication that he wants things more secular than it has been. I, for one, would think it would make fascinating reading if that is the case, because I do read the secular Biblical scholars and they have some incredibly fascinating views of the Bible that we Mormons cannot even fathom the ideas they have discovered and taught and written about, because we are very seldom encouraged to do or read anything otside our own Mormon tradition. Contrary to the judgments on that other board that cannot be named, I am not slandering Bradford, I am warning him (not that he'll ever read anything I write, of course) that if that is his choice of venues, he better do it right, the world will be watching and judging the accuracy.

[rameumptom]

Would you say that MI is possibly just replacing one type of "philosophy of men" with another? Do Hugh Nibley's thoughts on an apostate priesthood apply here? And how would this help us in anyway?

Ram

It's sad to say, but there is unquestionably still a very anti-intellectual bias certainly at least toward the "philosophies of men" and a lack of recognition that unfortunately the only options we have are indeed the philosophies of men, since God himself is one. Humanism in any form is condemned, and yet what we clearly are, is theistic humanists. We place at the core of our beliefs the most incredible "human potential movement" ever conceived - the idea that humans can become gods, and yet we do not understand all that goes with it.

[ERayR]

What do you think of other churches that have women's bible classes? I'm a Utahn and surrounding me are several churches that have a weekly bible class for women. I'm afraid I'd give LDS a bad name if I showed up there. I don't know my bible. I don't think it's as emphasised to read, as much as the BOM.

During the year that we were studying the Old Testament, I attended Ward Council mtngs on monthly basis. And at the top of the handout of meeting topics from the bishop, it had this goal listed: "Read the Book of Mormon" This happened at the beginning of my faith crisis and after I had found out about some church history that I didn't like. I really wanted to yell out to the bishop, "Why are you telling me to read the BOM, when it's the year for the "Old Testament", why not have that listed at the top?".

Some might think that I'm lazy for not reading the bible on my own. My question is why have Sunday School then? GD class is there to help us get through the scriptures.

Now I think I have the answer to my question. I think the bible class in GD has to be correlated so much b/c it contadicts some of our LDS beliefs. We aren't able to go verse by verse.

First my experience, from early in my life, with bible study led by other christian denominations is that they stress a lot that is not compatible with LDS theology. I found that for me it was better to get a good commentary from LDS authors and study on my own. Back in the old days before computers and the internet I amassed a considerable library. Choose for yourself but sooner or later LDS beliefs will be challenged and you will be pushed to change or defend.

Your bishop's urging to read the Book of Mormon was to remind you not to neglect the Book of Mormon while you were studying the Bible.

Church time only study of the scriptures just isn't enough time. To really study you must study on your own. If you were to go to that Bible study class you would commit a certain amount of time to it. Why not a good self study, committing a like amount of time?

Good luck in your studies.

[ERayR]

f you want to take Bible scholarship from the main players seriously, then we cannot have anyone quoting Margaret Barker, Levenson, or NB Wright.

Ram

Question: Aren't Margaret Barker, Levenson, or NB Wright scholars? Why does there work have to be rejected?

[rameumptom]

I believe reading the scriptures is very important. Equally important, however, is the discussion and sharing of insights. As I've shared on many occasions, the gospel is a deep ocean of doctrine, yet most only skip stones across the top of it.

I would encourage attending a bible class with others. Tell them that you want to understand the Bible in the way they do, so as to shed greater light on it for you. It will give you the opportunity to see how others read those same verses you do, and perhaps help you see alternative readings. Most LDS cannot see how other Christians can believe the Trinity, when they believe they clearly see it in the writings. You do not have to believe exactly in the Trinity in order to appreciate their reading of it. It has often been in discussing such things with others that I see the scriptures in new ways that have helped me out.

I found that I began learning about the scriptures when I gave less attention to church correlation (it loves to skip stones) and study scholarly papers and books from non-LDS. I did not agree with all of their insights. Nor do I think they equally are sharp in their arguments. But there are many that have truly helped me in understanding concepts like grace and atonement. I now have a very different view of these than when I joined the Church at 16, under the tutelage of those that quoted Mormon Doctrine.

And it is this reason I really enjoyed FARMS publications over the years. It often forced me to think in new ways regarding the scriptures and history. The Limited Geography Theory opened up new ways to read and understand the Book of Mormon, for example. I fully embrace the Documentary Hypothesis, though many LDS are wary of it. Yet it helps me see the BoM and Bible in ways that most LDS cannot. These are priceless things. I think that FARMS was very useful to me, not only in apologetics, but in understanding LDS scripture. I am unsure how a revamped MSR focused on secular scholarship will help much, except to share with LDS the beliefs of scholars from other religious traditions. With Kerry, I do not see how they will easily be able to defend a LDS reading of the scriptures, but will likely end up finding that they either have to return to an LDS-focused method, or accept that they will be writing things that LDS do not believe in.

Ram

What do you think of other churches that have women's bible classes? I'm a Utahn and surrounding me are several churches that have a weekly bible class for women. I'm afraid I'd give LDS a bad name if I showed up there. I don't know my bible. I don't think it's as emphasised to read, as much as the BOM.