Can The Maxwell Institute Go More Secular?

[Mike Reed]

Kerry. I don't think a single thing your list represents an assumption generally shared among my undergraduate and graduate school professors--except, perhaps, for number three: "3. Jesus never started a church." But this is largely because the topic is far too complex to make a blanket statement to the contrary. It would probably be better to instead talk about Jesus "seeking to restore and improve" instead of "start," and "religious movement/practices/piety" instead of "Church." This language would resonate better with an LDS audience, and would be in greater harmony with mainstream secular assumptions (as I understand them to be).

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Ron Beron]

SECULAR IDEAS AT COMPLETE ODDS WITH THE CHURCH I HAVE READ ON

1. Jesus didn't even exist.

2. If Jesus existed he in no wise was divine either during his life nor after the resurrection because it did not occur.

3. Jesus never started a church

4. Nothing in the Old Testament is real or accurate history, it is all re-written form later times replacing what actually happened with the political and religious agenda of Jews as they were returning from Babylon around 550 B.C.

5. None of the Gospels in the New Testament are history. There is no factual history in them

6. Jesus was not regarded as divine by any of the Gospel writers. The words they use and names they called him such as "Son of Man" and "Son of God" were NOT divinity titles indicating his status.

7. the Gospels are stories invented and embellished for political purposes. They are nothing but religious propaganda.

8. Paul is at complete odds with what the Gospels portrayed Jesus and his Gospel was.

9. Jesus was in no wise a Christian or a Mormon, but a full fledged Jew who remained loyal to that religion throughout his life.

10. The New Testament manuscript evidence demonstrates that the later manuscripts in the New Testament (further in the chronology, which is wrong as well) began to be concerned with a church because Jesus' eschatalogical return as the Son of God failed. The second coming did not occur, and therefore they had to do damage control to save Jesus some face

These are just 10 of innumerable themes that the "SECULAR" world deals with in the scriptures that THEY accept. They don't give a flying rip about

I think that the critical crowd of modern secularism would not necessarily agree with the above. While some have argued the above many including Bart Ehrman have written books on the historicity of Jesus and the contributions of Paul. I think the critic is more of an abstraction than a rule.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

What a FANTASTIC array of thoughts and ideas. THANK YOU all for contributing your views. I very much appreciate it. I always think it's great to talk it out and learn together and rise above the riff raff (whatever that might be)

[Bikeemikey]

It certainly can be. Here is a prime example from a handout prepared by the Church Educational System for a CES Conference on the New Testament held at BYU in 2000:

Needless to say, this description leaves something to be desired in terms of scholarly rigor and objectivity.

(More measured assessments appear in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3, Companions and Competitors; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE; the Anchor Bible Dictionary; HarperCollins Bible Dictionary; Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, to name just a few.)

I don't think tht anyone would think that CES is aiming for scholarly rigor; the seem to be aiming at narrowly selected theories of men mingled with scripture.

As such I don't think they are a good example of faith based scholarship as what they do does not really amount to scholarship.

[Damien the Leper]

No, you have him pegged.....I am just reading his most recent book and he is more agnostic.... but that sure doesn't effect his scholarship on the Bible much, he is very interesting to read on the most recent themes for a general audience of any Bible author writing on this subject......a very educational author to learn form, not that he has the last and final word, but my word what a word he has!

I was given his book "Did Jesus Exist?" recently by a friend. I also plan to read his book he wrote with Zlatko Plese "The Apocryphal Gospels". Plese teaches Gnosticism at UNC Chapel Hill.

[CASteinman]

YES religious bias is harder to overcome than other bias....... I would propose absolutely.....

I doubt it. I see no reason why one bias would be any different from another. This is probably impossible to test.

[Damien the Leper]

I doubt it. I see no reason why one bias would be any different from another. This is probably impossible to test.

Have you read anything from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary?

[Damien the Leper]

In the NT, OT and BoM classes I have taken at the Institute of Religion there has been both Greek and Hebrew terminology provided to provide clear and concise insight into exactly what the authors are trying to enlighten us on or teach us. I love it when institute instructors provide the terminology. It makes learning the scriptures so much more insightful rather than just interpretation of scripture or doctrine/dogma.

[CASteinman]

I think this 2007 article in the FARMS Review is a rather well-articulated description of Bradford's desired direction for the Maxwell Institute:

The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia

I started reading this one time long ago -- maybe when it first came out. I lost interest at the time because I did not realize who Bradford really was and also, I thought it was exceptionally esoteric and perhaps a bit weird.

Reading it again, I can see more to the idea than I originally did, but I do not see how it is competitive with or more valuable than what FARMS could do in apologetics.

In short, I don't see why he couldn't have achieved his goals without destroying things that already existed.

[CASteinman]

Have you read anything from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary?

No. Does he regularly speak to the measurable difference in resilience between different kinds of bias?

[CASteinman]

I don't think tht anyone would think that CES is aiming for scholarly rigor; the seem to be aiming at narrowly selected theories of men mingled with scripture.

As such I don't think they are a good example of faith based scholarship as what they do does not really amount to scholarship.

Are you aware that CES includes BYU and other Universities? Whenever I read these criticisms of CES, I get the impression that the only thing people grasp of CES is Seminary and Institute -- which is also not exactly as you cynically describe either.

[Ron Beron]

I was given his book "Did Jesus Exist?" recently by a friend. I also plan to read his book he wrote with Zlatko Plese "The Apocryphal Gospels". Plese teaches Gnosticism at UNC Chapel Hill.

The book (Ehrman) is excellent if not a little long and disjointed at times, but he makes his point very clearly.

[Ron Beron]

Have you read anything from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary?

I understand he was behind the very excellent Bible translation, "The NET Bible".

[volgadon]

Considering his extensive article on the subject of religious studies that Will linked to, I think he knows exactly what he wants and how to put it into words.

In and of itself, seems fair enough a suggestion. I've personally got many ideas for papers comp LDS and other- mainly Jewish- ideas, much like what Abraham Joshua Heschel termed the affinity of strangers. It remains to be seen how Bradford implements the change. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

[zerinus]

Reading it again, I can see more to the idea than I originally did, but I do not see how it is competitive with or more valuable than what FARMS could do in apologetics.

It may not be; but if your existing team of editors, subeditors, and assistants persistently fail to catch your vision and implement it; and if they in addition keep producing, commissioning, or approving old style "apologetics" work that is substandard, what options do you have left?

In short, I don't see why he couldn't have achieved his goals without destroying things that already existed.

I don't know the details; but judging by what others have said, he tried for a decade before giving up hope. His interpersonal skills may not be as great as his academic ones! But his academic vision of the future appears to be sound, and one that I can entirely sympathise with. I can also see how he may find it hard to find the right LDS scholars who can share his vision and move it forward. His best bet might be to solicit articles from sympathetic non-LDS scholars, until LDS scholars begin to see things the way he sees them.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Have you read anything from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary?

Yes. I have his magnaminous book "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" which is a rather extensive and complete analysis of New Testament Greek.

[CASteinman]

It may not be; but if your existing team of editors, subeditors, and assistants persistently fail to catch your vision and implement it; and if they in addition keep producing, commissioning, or approving old style "apologetics" work that is substandard, what options do you have left?

Well, you have two legitimate options. You could first of all stop lying about it by calling it "old style apologetics" especially if you were not offering any sort of "new style".

And more pointedly you could do what the Apologists did -- and start a publication and separate organization to accomplish your goals.

That is actually the honorable thing to do as well given that when you hired the original team you told them to keep doing what they were doing.

Of course there is something of a problem with that in that, as his paper points out -- there is no dearth of such publications already. He would have to compete with a forest of other such pulp.

However, if he could take over and subvert the only reasonable and decently organized publication for apologetics, he might win by having a "captive audience". As long as they did not catch on.

Ooops.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[Avatar4321]

Why does it need to go secular to be scholarship?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Why does it need to go secular to be scholarship?

Because I have been reading the tripe from LDS writings out of BYU (MI and BYU Studies under the tutelage and care of Jack Welch are the two serious exceptions) now for decades, and compared to the scholarship on scriptures it's a mouse to an elephant. Biblical scholarship is simply lightyears ahead of Mormons who continue quoting Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as if they were Bible scholars and have something to say that is accurate from today's understanding and scholarship. We SORELY need to update our LDS scholarship. We are losing by default and don't even know it. And why don't we? Because all we read is the LDS faith promoting junk without any recourse to the really quality scholarship and we have myopically been hypnotized into thinking what we are reading IS the good stuff.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

Because I have been reading the tripe from LDS writings out of BYU (MI and BYU Studies under the tutelage and care of Jack Welch are the two serious exceptions) now for decades, and compared to the scholarship on scriptures it's a mouse to an elephant. Biblical scholarship is simply lightyears ahead of Mormons who continue quoting Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as if they were Bible scholars and have something to say that is accurate from today's understanding and scholarship. We SORELY need to update our LDS scholarship. We are losing by default and don't even know it. And why don't we? Because all we read is the LDS faith promoting junk without any recourse to the really quality scholarship and we have myopically been hypnotized into thinking what we are reading IS the good stuff.

As a shameless plug, have you seen this? http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-saadia-gaon-maimonides-believe-in.html

[Kerry A. Shirts]

As a shameless plug, have you seen this? http://calba-savua.b...believe-in.html

Wow, sharp eye......... interesting thanks...... yeah man........the faith promoting ever trying to Mormonize everything at the expense of good solid scholarship.....crimany we just suck at everything but building faith.....and that faisl once one sees the silliness of the LDS scholarship which is trying to hard to promote faith and increase faith. McConkie's way just is no longer tenable man..... I LOVED the man's testimony on the Christ.....all else is let go by now. I haven't looked into it for decades now.

[Bernard Gui]

It cannot work because non-LDS scholars will never move an inch toward

the First Vision. The only possible motion would be an LDS retreat.

Bernard

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It cannot work because non-LDS scholars will never move an inch toward

the First Vision. The only possible motion would be an LDS retreat.

Bernard

And that's the other side of the coin, yep.........

[Bernard Gui]

And that's the other side of the coin, yep.........

Nibley nailed this to the wall in "The World and the Prophets."

There is no way the secular world can or will countenance a man speaking with

God as one man speaks with another. And those who believe it will always

be marginalized.

Bernard

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[zerinus]

Well, you have two legitimate options. You could first of all stop lying about it by calling it "old style apologetics" especially if you were not offering any sort of "new style".

Not sure if this was addressed to me or to Bradford; but I don't think that either of us us "lying" about anything. As for the "new style," I thought Bradford did a pretty good job of explaining it in his aforementioned article. Not sure what else he can do if some people are too dense to "get it".

And more pointedly you could do what the Apologists did -- and start a publication and separate organization to accomplish your goals.

That is actually the honorable thing to do as well given that when you hired the original team you told them to keep doing what they were doing.

* * *

However, if he could take over and subvert the only reasonable and decently organized publication for apologetics, he might win by having a "captive audience". As long as they did not catch on.

I was not aware that he "took over" anything. BYU did; which means the Church.

Of course there is something of a problem with that in that, as his paper points out -- there is no dearth of such publications already. He would have to compete with a forest of other such pulp.

You are still not "getting it". There is a "dearth" of those kinds of publications, compared to what can be achieved, and of the right quality and kind. I do admit though that by the look of things, the likelihood that "LDS scholars" will achieve that goal very soon appears to be slim. Non-LDS scholars are likely to do better for the foreseeable future.

Ooops.

Indeed.

Edited June 27, 2012 by zerinus