Why Byu And The Maxwell Institute Are In Serious, Serious Trouble

[wenglund]

Even though by far my favorite religion courses at BYU were taught by Abraham Gilieadi (the Old Testament and Comparative Religion), and while I cherish scholarship, I still think BYU's religion department does a whole lot of good for the general student body, and I have no problem with the direction it has taken--particularly since our religion isn't about scholarship, but Christ-like living. Besides, to me, there are better venues for scholarship, which is why I have thought so highly of FARMS/MI and FAIR, if not also discussion boards such as this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kevin Christensen]

Of course, Nephi and His Asherah was published in the volume Honoring John Sorenson, with a shorter version in JBMS. Alyson Von Felt did an amazingly insightful review of Dever's Did God Have a Wife? for the Review.

Consider Robert's statement that "Basically, the tension between Dever and his substantial detractors, which is whether Yahweh really existed to give revelation and to denounce His competitors, is something “Nephi and his Asherah” completely overlooks." That's a valid issue, but the answer deserves serious consideration.

I spent some time looking at what Ezekiel and Jeremiah and Lehi and Nephi some contemporaries thought of Josiah's Reform. I think it's key that Jeremiah 1:19 describes who Jeremiah was called against:

"For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, against the ^aprinces thereof, against the priests thereof, and against the people of the land."

Jeremiah is called after the Reform begins (it is not Jeremiah's Reform, but Josiah's), and against the very people and institutions who were implimenting the Reform. Ezekiel 22 is an extended diatribe against exactly the same list of parties. It was the "people of the land" who installed the eight year old Josiah as King. Jeremiah also complains that since he was called (after Josiah began the reform) that no one listened to him. The one positive thing that Jeremiah says about Josiah is that compared to Jehoiakim, Josiah took care of the poor.

The passage in Jer. 44 against those who complained that Jerusalem's troubles began when they stopped "baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven" strikes me as equivalent to Jeremiah's diatribe against the temple in chapter 7.

Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these.

5 For if ye athroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;

6 If ye oppress not the astranger, the bfatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:

7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

The point is not that the temple is inherently bad thing, even if the current operators are robbers, but that ritual without moral reform does not impress God. I think the diatribe in Jer. 44 has the same intent. Baking cakes is not the same as repenting. There are a number of positive references in Jeremiah to Wisdom and the Tree of Life that ought to be weighed in the balance.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Enoch, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob and others all argue that something was amis in Jerusalem. Many passages refer to "blindness," equated with a rejection of and lack of vision. Ezekiel expressly contrasts blindness with anthropomorphic visions. A key question is whether Josiah's Reform was Yahweh's, and that question can be explored. Daniel Peterson's essay is pathbreaking, even if it does not explore that question in detail. It's clear that Josiah removed the Tree of Life from the Temple and that when Lehi went into the Desert, he found it. It's also very clear from the cultural background that Daniel Peterson and others have explored what the Tree of Life signified at the time. It's interesting that Josiah's father was Amon, and that is a good Book of Mormon name, but that Josiah, whose efforts Lehi must have witnessed, does not generate a single Book of Mormon name. Why not? Personally, I think that Jacob 4:19 is a direct comment on the reform, and the change to the High Priesthood that removed the "mark" the anointing that shows that the High Priest has taken the name of the LORD.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[why me]

I think this is entirely debatable (and I have) - since I think that Mormonism is very much a postmodern religion in its doctrine. Where postmodernism will really be seen as a threat to the church is not is rejection of meta-narratives (a notion which is absolutely compatible with the idea of continuing revelation, and the notion that the church does not have the entire truth) but rather its deconstruction of authority. It's the part that suggests that personal revelation is the most important revelation, and that prophets and leaders aren't particularly better suited for this than any other member. It's the bit that says that we must all interpret the scriptures ourselves (with the spirit) - and that relying on how General Authorities interpret them (and express their interpretations) is a certain path to misunderstanding and not a route to real truth. It is the realization that when the lesson on Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life in Sunday School quotes a General Authority for an interpretation of some of the symbolism that this is nothing more than being treated like Laman and Lemuel who go to ask Nephi what it means. Their role as revelators is for the church - and there, we recognize that they have a great deal of authority, but we deconstruct it everywhere else.

Ben M.

The foundation of mormonism is its narrative that it is the one and only true church. And to back this up, there is its foundational story: angels, visitation by two personalges, book of mormon, priesthood, eleven witnesses. These are all used to verify the truth narrative. Also, one can argue that mormonism is a by production of the enlightenment and modernism. We need to remember that Marx, Emerson, Theroux, etc were all on the horizon not yet making any impact when mormonism was born. This truth claim is a huge part of mormonism as is its narrative.

Now what the critics do is to use postmodern identities to deconstruct the truth claim and they do this by concentrating on various sub-identities of mormonism. These may inclunde the witness statements, polygamy, polyandry, masornary, Brigham Young and race etc. And they use these and other identities to chip away at the narrative to cast doubt in the members minds that the narrative is false. And apologists spend a great deal of time defending these little fractures in mormonism that may influence the members. So, I would claim that postmodernism has influenced the critics and also has led to attacks against the lds faith because of its meta-truth claims.

Edited June 27, 2012 by why me

[mfbukowski]

I think this is entirely debatable (and I have) - since I think that Mormonism is very much a postmodern religion in its doctrine. Where postmodernism will really be seen as a threat to the church is not is rejection of meta-narratives (a notion which is absolutely compatible with the idea of continuing revelation, and the notion that the church does not have the entire truth) but rather its deconstruction of authority. It's the part that suggests that personal revelation is the most important revelation, and that prophets and leaders aren't particularly better suited for this than any other member. It's the bit that says that we must all interpret the scriptures ourselves (with the spirit) - and that relying on how General Authorities interpret them (and express their interpretations) is a certain path to misunderstanding and not a route to real truth. It is the realization that when the lesson on Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life in Sunday School quotes a General Authority for an interpretation of some of the symbolism that this is nothing more than being treated like Laman and Lemuel who go to ask Nephi what it means. Their role as revelators is for the church - and there, we recognize that they have a great deal of authority, but we deconstruct it everywhere else.

Well I agree of course- it is hard not to agree because authority really does become the central problem for a post-modernist Mormon. But I think maybe a James or a Dewey would simply see religious authorities (assuming they were inclined to accept their authority, which is, admittedly, a big assumption) as those who's religious intuitions seem to work better as manifested in their lives, or jumping to another analogy, as those who Maslow might see as having more "peak experiences" and being more self-actualized than others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization

And clearly in large organizations hierarchical systems are clearly necessary, especially in those as decentralized as the church. Somebody has to approve the manuals that keep the organization from falling into thousands of individual congregations run by local bishops with no ties to a central authority, along the lines of an Evangelical or for that matter even a Buddhist model.

But I suppose that is the extent of my heresy from post-modernism.

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you, Bob, for adding your comments. I would like to clarify that I in no way hold a "condescending" view of BYU or the Department(s) of Religious Education. I graduated from BYU and taught in the department for the past two years.

I have devoted my entire life to religious education and scholarship, and have spent most of my career as a professional religious educator and an official LDS chaplain at Harvard University. I absolutely endorse the mission statement of BYU Religious Education. I simply disagree vehemently with those who maintain that serious Gospel scholarship is incapatable with spritual edification, and that LDS students should be afraid to pursue academic studies in biblical scholarship.

My experience with Claremont and Dr. Bushman showed me there that most of the budding young scholars there in the New Testament program are, indeed, atheists. I don’t condemn that, but it shows where scholarship in many of the journals lies.

In my experience, one of the reasons for this trend is the way that these scholars are treated by their respective religious institutions, and made to feel that serious biblical scholarship and spirituality are antithetical in scope. Rather than fall into this trap, I believe that we as Latter-day Saints should learn from these mistakes and follow a different course.
  Edited March 3, 2014 by David Bokovoy

[mfbukowski]

At some point, and it may take a very long time (look how long it took Catholicism) church will need to create adequate space for its scholars and lay theologians.

This is a very interesting question in itself- in a Mormon context- do we have "lay theologians"? Are we all really "laity"?

[Kevin Christensen]

Why me states:

The foundation of mormonism is its narrative that it is the one and only true church.

The foundation of John Dehlin's narrative is that he came to believe that the LDS church is not "the one and only true church."

I've long found it interesting to note that D&C 1:30 does not include the phrase "the one and only true church," As an exercise, count how many words you have to subtract and then add to come up with the phrase, "the one and only true church," and consider whether that kind of subtraction and addition should lead to a clear understanding of what the Lord describes as expressing "mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments," (D&C 1:6). Understanding exactly what "mine authority and the authority of my servants" involves, and therefore exactly what expectations we should have has a tremendous impact on what we will subsequently notice and value as either validating or as troubling relative to those claims. Verse 30 alone has 60 words, compared to "the one and only true church" which has 6. Can we get the full meaning from a tithe of the content? And that does not account for "the one" phrase not being in the original.

I recently posted the Perry Scheme from which I note the description of Stage 2:

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 27, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

A key question is whether Josiah's Reform was Yahweh's, and that question can be explored.

That question has been answered in General Conference sermons and Church publications. I assume you would have little interest in my quoting from the various manuals and sermons. This is where you and I differ substantially. I think that to question the reforms, in that they wipe out cultic practices in the Temple, is to question Yahweh himself. You and Bokovoy are just going down the feminist path that Dever champions. To most observers of LDS commentary this is a nothing issue, but the siren song of the atheist and Margaret Barker is what it is.

We don't buy into that nonsense, as there is 500 years of scholarship to refute it. The fact that archaeology shows Asherah was a cultic practice in Israel means nothing to me, as Yahweh himself acknowledges that cultic practice and condemns it.

But let's not derail this thread with more on my attacks against Dever and the LDS scholars who follow him.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Matt, I was warned against pursuing a degree in Hebrew Bible by BYU Religion instructors, and encouraged instead to pursue a degree in an ancillary subject. I will not address publicly my own experiences with the department, but I would strongly advise LDS students who may have an interest in teaching at BYU to take this advice very seriously.

When I was in the ANES program, I was not discouraged from Hebrew Bible studies as a matter of employment at BYU, I was discouraged as a matter of employment anywhere. The jobs in the field, even after getting a doctorate are abysmally low. Add in that many of the few jobs are at evangelical or other religious schools that are hesitant to employ an active LDS scholar (or outright refuse to), it was pounded into us that "there are no jobs, there are no jobs, there are no jobs!". In fact. Gayle Strathorne (I know I am misspelling her name…), in her ANES intro class, said part of the point of the class was to emphasize that, and that by doing only the most dedicated would enter an already limited field.

In truth, I did not continue because of the financial cost and time. I couldn't justify the lengthy period and expense to get a doctorate in a field that may not employ me. Six classes from graduation, work transferred me to Houston, and in need of financial security I took it. I hope to finish my degree someday since I am so close, but for now...

Anyway, I want everyone bashing BYU to understand some MAJOR differences (this isn't directed at you David, since I know you are already aware of this):

1) The Religion Department is for teaching Institute style classes. It's objectives are to help people draw closer to God while reading slightly deeper on the text. While I tried to take courses from the likes of Wayment, who were much more academic, the focus is on religious growth and understanding of LDS doctrine. Not secular education. And that is EXACTLY how I think it should be.

2) BYU has multiple departments field with very smart specialists. The Ancient Near Eastern Studies Bachelor program was led by Dr. Pike. He taught secularly, adding in Gospel aspects as they seemed relevant, openly discussing where they converged and did not. I took classes from him such as Early Canaanite Culture and Religion, which encompassed early Israelites and was heavily academic. My final paper for that class was "The Lying God of Israel, How the Early Israelite Depiction of Deity Included Divine Deception". Dr. Parry taught fantastic classes in Biblical Hebrew, Temples, etc. Bill Hamblin made me fight for a good grade in his History of the ANES: 300 BC - 400 AD class, which I don't think had much religious persuasion in it at all. I took classes on hermetics, historiocity, etc. We tore the Old Testament to shreds, using secular arguments. And while a few couldn't handle it and left or lost their testimonies, the majority of us did just fine, although our view of all scripture changed dramatically (and I would say for the better). The debates were heated and lively.

3) BYU intentionally has decided not to go beyond a bachelor's degree in ANES. It is not because they don't want us studying it, but because they know the problems associated with getting a job if we stay with BYU for too long. Not only that, but the field itself encourages attending different schools for each level of education to get the broadest possible exposure to vastly different approaches and ideas.

4) Unfortunately, there are some in the Religion Department who are anti-academic. Or at least they say so, unless something from 3-rate scholarship happens to agree with them, which they will use. I took a couple classes from a few of them. While these are vocal, they are the minority. Most are neutral. They are doing their job, encouraging people to be better than they are, draw closer to Christ, love learning about the secular, but are limited on time because they are, honestly, engaged in what is likely a greater work.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So let's take a look a Bob's post here -

First, the introduction of a different kind of authority -

"That question has been answered in General Conference sermons and Church publications". There, see - we have an interpretation which creates a denial from an ecclesiastical (not a scholarly) authority in response to a suggestion about a scholarly subject. Then, we get the charge of being feminists ("you ... are going down the feminist path that Dever champions" (the conclusion I draw from it is that being on a feminist path is a bad thing for this poster). Then the comparison and name calling with the association with atheists ("but the siren song of the atheist ... is what it is.") And finally the suggestion, of course, that they are all following an atheist ("... against Dever and the LDS scholars who follow him.") - and by "going down the ... path" that the atheist Dever champions, presumably they are well on the road to becoming atheists themselves - right Bob?

Are these kinds of tactics all that helpful in this discourse?

Ben M.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Senator]

Are these kinds of tactics all that helpful in this discourse?

Hmm..

Maybe that's what some critics of Mormon apologetics have been trying to say and simply chose the wrong tactic description.

But hey, all are kept dry under the umbrella of polemics.

[David Bokovoy]

An issue was raised regarding my post on another board, and I wanted to offer this clarification here as well...

I don't believe that scholars with ancillary degrees to Bible are incapable of making important contributions to scriptural texts. As a case in point, I would simply refer to Northwest Semitic scholar Mark Smith who has made major contributions to the field of biblical studies. The fact that someone like my friend, William Hamblin, for example has a PhD in History and has made important contributions to Near Eastern studies such as Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 (excellent book!!) does not mean that he lacks the qualification to contribute to the academic discussion of Mormon scripture. Bill is very, very intelligent, and over the years, I have gained wonderful insights by reading his work in Bible, etc.

In fact, having an ancillary speciality like Bill does, actually brings new insights into biblical analysis, etc. Moreover, I don't even believe that only scholars with degrees can make important contributions to the academic field of scriptural studies. One of the best articles on Cain's sacrifice, in my opinion, was written by biblical scholar Gary Herion, who was given his initial insight into the pericope by an observation made by one of his undergraduate students.

Great read:

Gary A. Herion, "Why God Rejected Cain's Offering: The Obvious Answer," in Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid Beck; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 54.

Edited June 27, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[Cicero]

I was a history major at BYU and was also advised by many professors that doing graduate work in Church history would be a career dead end. The Religion department also teaches church history (much to the chagrin of the history department) and at that time (late 90's) other schools were not hiring experts in Mormon history. At that time very few of the folks teaching church history were trained as historians (Susan Easton Black, for example, has a doctorate in Education). A lot of people on this board know all about Leonard Arrington and "Camelot." I realize that this is far from an analagous situation, but it has an oddly similar feel to it.

[HiJolly]

Well good to see you again then I guess since we probably knew each other in the AOL pre-existence

I don't even know what screen name I was using back then.

I was just learning how horribly ignorant I was, thanks to AOL and ARM. Daryl Barksdale introduced me to AOL, I stumbled across ARM on my own a few years earlier.

HiJolly

[Benjamin McGuire]

Maybe that's what some critics of Mormon apologetics have been trying to say and simply chose the wrong tactic description.

But hey, all are kept dry under the umbrella of polemics.

And this is a wild mischaracterization of what Mormon apologetics as published by FARMS and the NAMI has been. Generally speaking, Mormon apologetics is characterized by thoughtful, researched positions and views.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Nonsense.

Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!

A HEARTY AMEN to that proposition.....

[Bob Crockett]

So let's take a look a Bob's post here -

First, the introduction of a different kind of authority -

"That question has been answered in General Conference sermons and Church publications". There, see - we have an interpretation which creates a denial from an ecclesiastical (not a scholarly) authority in response to a suggestion about a scholarly subject. Then, we get the charge of being feminists ("you ... are going down the feminist path that Dever champions" (the conclusion I draw from it is that being on a feminist path is a bad thing for this poster). Then the comparison and name calling with the association with atheists ("but the siren song of the atheist ... is what it is.") And finally the suggestion, of course, that they are all following an atheist ("... against Dever and the LDS scholars who follow him.") - and by "going down the ... path" that the atheist Dever champions, presumably they are well on the road to becoming atheists themselves - right Bob?

Are these kinds of tactics all that helpful in this discourse?

Ben M.

Dever is an atheist.

Dever is a feminist, and he admits in his book that others in his field are not and don't see it the way he does. He champions in his book the feminist view, and that is that God (whom he doesn't believe in) might was well be female. Because there are more images uncovered of Asherah (thousands) than Yawheh (zero), then God must be Asherah.

And then there's Margaret Barker, but I can address that separately.

But I've not said that LDS scholars who rely upon feminist and atheistic scholarship are atheists. After all, I have cited to Michael Quinn in my works.

Look to God and live! Not to some theory that because there are more images of Asherah in the ground than Yahweh that Asherah must be God. Which is Dever's point.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Craig Paxton]

See? I toldja all I knew whereof I was speaking when I said students get discouraged from studying and teaching Old Testament........ I am sincerely sorry it's this way also. Crimany man, it just doesn't have to be so FEAR based from the church. If the church really has the Spirit to guide us, then who is to say those students looking into the Old Testament are NOT being guided? Buy BYU thinks it knows best. I honest to luvin goodness am seriously sitting on my hands here from really letting it rip about how I feel and other folks who have given me insider information on how things are REALLY happenin behind the scenes, but I have promised, so I will refrain, but this is but ONE example of quite a few I am aware of. This is why our church is literally 20 years behind the times in scholarship and understanding of the Bible alone, not to mention so much else. I'm sorry to be the one ta tell ya'all, but man the paranoia of fear and dread of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture and other silliness has just GOT TO DISAPPEAR! And, I don't know the solution. I can tell you though, from my exposure to the Biblical languages I have had thus far, I can absolutely certainly see that the Bible is a different animal than I have been taught. Careful selection of the few pictures and scriptures and contexts that have been picked through the years and repeated and repeated are simply NOT the story or meaning of the Bible. Oh we have some bright spots in LDS scholarship, make no mistake about it, but overall.....without any meanness or judgment, even though that is what I, unfortunately am doing here, the scholarship out of the MI would be A, while the rest of whatever religious studies has happened at BYU is a grade of D. The faith promoting has backfired for one very serious reason........ the faith promoting approach has backfired for ONE VERY IMPORTANT REASON............ a VERY *******IMPORTANT******** REASON I'm telling you.......the Internet. Now full access to the most astonishing amounts of information is had at the mere push of a button. Control over information is being RAPIDLY lost to absolutely ALL people as the computers and net grow. There is no longer any special privaleged information for only the upper cognescenti. Now we ALL get the much broader and fuller skinny, and if all the churchs of the earth combined to try and keep it secret, it ain't happenin now man. Sooooooooooo, we have to go FULL GUNS as a church into the intellectual....... NOW we are beginning to fathom and see the seriously high price of faith promoting at the expense of genuine and serious knowledge. And it's only just begun man...... I promise, I am not simply typing sour grapes here......... Bokovoy and others I am aware of are the victims of the SYMPTOM of the problem, NOT the problem itself ........

Wow just Wow....I couldn't agree more...."NOW we are beginning to fathom and see the seriously high price of faith promoting at the expense of genuine and serious knowledge". Yup...its coming back to bite em in the Arse...

[mfbukowski]

The foundation of mormonism is its narrative that it is the one and only true church. And to back this up, there is its foundational story: angels, visitation by two personalges, book of mormon, priesthood, eleven witnesses. These are all used to verify the truth narrative. Also, one can argue that mormonism is a by production of the enlightenment and modernism. We need to remember that Marx, Emerson, Theroux, etc were all on the horizon not yet making any impact when mormonism was born. This truth claim is a huge part of mormonism as is its narrative.

There is a huge difference between being the "one true church" and being the church which teaches all that is needed to perform a certain task- namely salvation and exaltation. With all the advice to seek out the best books, and the basic notion that "true" science and "true" religion are compatible, that spirit is material in some way and the whole notion of ongoing revelation negates any suggestion that all truth is to be found in one place. We just don't believe that.

We have an immanent God who changes and responds to his children, we have the concept that his kingdom is growing in glory through his children- all of these beliefs are evidences of the differences between our beliefs and the idea that "truth" is finished, perfected, and known.

And what you are missing is that all the figures you mentioned were very much part of the American ethos of manifest destiny and the pioneer outlook - that the world was just waiting to be "organized" by conquering nature- going out and clearing the woods, making your cabin, and your chimney so you could have a fire with which you could read your bible into the night.

The only difference between Mormons and humanists is that humanists think that anthropomorphic gods are projections of men upon the heavens, and Mormons believe that God is a Man who projects Himself on humanity.

Is God "in here" inside the human psyche or "out there" communicating with the human psyche?

In the final Pragmatic analysis, it really amounts to the same thing.

[Weston Krogstadt]

"Serious serious trouble"???

[Bill Hamblin]

It is not a case of either-or. It is a case of both-and. There is certainly a place for the three Ds (doctrine, devotion, and daily-application as usually taught in BYU Religious Education) in scripture study. It may be an important part of scripture study. But the fact of the matter is, we have modern prophets who regularly guide us in the three Ds.

The purpose of studying scripture is to bring us to Christ. I believe that scholarly insights--understanding the original meaning of scripture in its original language and cultural and historical context--can actually help us come unto Christ, by accurately understanding what Christ actually said.

On the other hand, the purpose of secular biblical studies is not to bring us to Christ. It presupposes the Bible as purely a human construction, describing purely human activities. There is, without a doubt, a spiritual acid in secular biblical studies, which can--though it won't inevitably--destroy faith.

So what is required, as it always has been, is a careful balancing between "study and faith" as the Doctrine and Covenants suggests.

[ERayR]

Did all of you eminent scholars ever stop to think that all that interesting information you dig up that makes the scriptures so much more interesting and understandable to you is not seen that way by everybody. There are some of us who enjoy riding along and reading, studying and discussing your discoveries. However there are so many more who don't care. There is the young mother who asks how that helps explain God's love and Jesus' atonement to her family. The father who wonders how this scholarship helps to lead his family to the temple. The older couple who know their mortal probation is coming to completion who wonder how this helps them to be at peace that they have done all they can to be right with God. Does it help the bishop to shepherd his ward? The Elders Quorum President, the High Priests group leader, the Relief Society President, etc.

The recent events at BYU Maxwell Institute are unfortunate. They could have and should have been handled much more professionally. And yes in my opinion they were a mistake but to predict the demise of the Maxwell Institute, well that remains to be seen. Apologetics will go on, somewhere, somehow. BYU will continue to educate students. They will continue to this as they have, not as good as some but better than others. The sky is not going to fall and the church will struggle along as it has through periods of apostasy and growth. Many will join. Many will not stay for long but the elect will persevere and stay the course. And the scholars will continue with their interesting work continuing to believe that it is more important than it probably really is.

[David Bokovoy]

Did all of you eminent scholars ever stop to think that all that interesting information you dig up that makes the scriptures so much more interesting and understandable to you is not seen that way by everybody.

Of course. As one of my close friends has expressed it: in terms of Book of Mormon "apologetics," we're not trying to prove its truthfulness with our research, we're just trying to prove that it's interesting. The fact that others may not agree, and/or value such efforts is to be expected. Edited March 3, 2014 by David Bokovoy

[William Schryver]

Of course. As one of my close friends (who actually may now no longer wish to be connected with me in public) ...

David and his close friend, prior to the surgery.

Edited June 27, 2012 by William Schryver

[Calm]

But polling, conducted by Richard Wirthlin, revealed some remarkable things, and that was that the single most significant factor in predicting faithful adherence to the Church was not attending seminary, serving a mission or having LDS parents. It was whether a person had had a Church education. At this point, and inexorably so, the Board of Trustees has moved towards an expansion of educational opportunities (expansion of BYU-Provo; the PEF; growth of the Institutes; conversion of Ricks to BYU-I; proposed massive expansion of BYU-SLC; as well as brief exploratory looks at BYU-California).

Very interesting. Do you have a reference where one can read more on this?