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

[David Bokovoy]

David and his close friend, prior to the surgery.

All I can say is that given your skills with photoshop, I'm glad I didn't mention his name!

[William Schryver]

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).

Frankly, I don't believe this. I'm not suggesting that the report of the polling is false, I'm simply dubious that it is accurate. I would like to see the methodology behind the study.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Though he was not the person I was referring to, so don't photoshop him as my conjoined twin, this comment perfectly captures my own view.

Edited June 27, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[wenglund]

Hmm..

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

If no one else, I appreciate your selective finger-pointing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

It presupposes the Bible as purely a human construction, describing purely human activities.

I would just raise the question though, of what are the implications for this line of thinking if indeed God IS human ? Doesn't the difference kind of dissolve before our eyes if humans carry the spark of divinity and the purely divine is really the highest expression of being human?

To me that is the genius of Mormonism

Edited June 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[why me]

Why me states:

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,"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Of course John does not believe in the mormon truth narrative. And his podcasts reflect this rejection. And when one understands his rejection, one can come to understand why he conducts his podcasts in the way that he does. All critics of the lds church reject the mormon narrative because they reject the meta-narrative. And they have various strategies to deconstruct that narrative. For example, now on the other board, there is a thread about the witnesses and how these witnesses are unreliable. A critic would need to believe this understanding to verify their status as an exmember and attempt to deconstruct that portion of the narrative. .

Members see the lds church as the one true church of christ. There are no exceptions to this belief. It is the restored church of christ. For the members, it becomes a meta-narrative of immense proportions. And if they allow this narrative to be punctured, they can suffer because they lost a narrative that helped them to live life. And they will need to find a new identity in this postmodern world: NOM, EXMO, PostMo etc.

[Mark Beesley]

And this lack of scholarship is by design. Recent hires in the department of ancient scripture have focused primarily upon LDS seminary teachers with degrees in Instructional Technology, and Education; those currently being considered seriously for research positions in the department of Ancient Scripture include teachers with degrees in Public Administration, etc. The current Department Chair over Ancient Scripture holds a PhD in Sociology, and the former Department Chair over Ancient Scripture has a degree in P.E.

Even the few instructors in Ancient Scripture with academic degrees somewhat connected with the field do not actually have a background in ancient scripture, but instead, in an ancillary subject to ancient scripture such as Egyptology, Comparative Semitics, or Archeology. Very few instructors in the history of the department have had degrees in ancient scripture; and, not surprising, very few have contributed to FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, let alone the greater academic field of scriptural analysis outside of Mormonism. It just hasn't happened.

Without the likes of serious scholars such as Dan Peterson and his friends, how will the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship possibly hope to align its work “with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University”?

What is Professor Peterson's area of expertise again? Islam or Arabic or something like that?

I know I seem to be on the "wrong" side of this matter as far as the prevailing opinion on the Board seems to be, but everyone needs to take a deep breath, a step back, and just relax. I mean, it's not like Moses has commanded the destruction of the sacred cow, is it?

[zerinus]

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

Trouble is, that a lot of the time it is not even interesting.

[ERayR]

What is Professor Peterson's area of expertise again? Islam or Arabic or something like that?

I know I seem to be on the "wrong" side of this matter as far as the prevailing opinion on the Board seems to be, but everyone needs to take a deep breath, a step back, and just relax. I mean, it's not like Moses has commanded the destruction of the sacred cow, is it?

I don't now if you saw my post above but that is basically what I was getting to.

[USU78]

Frankly, I don't believe this. I'm not suggesting that the report of the polling is false, I'm simply dubious that it is accurate. I would like to see the methodology behind the study.

Hear! Hear!

Sounds like an apologetic for yBu offered in order to maximize the take of tithes during a time when tithing inflows were down and there was a hiring freeze in 50 E North Temple.

[Mark Beesley]

I don't now if you saw my post above but that is basically what I was getting to.

I hadn't seen your post as I had not yet read the entire thread when I posted. But I went back and read it, and <gasp> agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. (Even floated you a rep point, but you may not want to publicize that.)

[ERayR]

I hadn't seen your post as I had not yet read the entire thread when I posted. But I went back and read it, and <gasp> agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. (Even floated you a rep point, but you may not want to publicize that.)

Thanks

[Kevin Barney]

David, I was somewhat stunned by the disclosure that Dana and Dave were called on the carpet for alluding to the Documentary Hypothesis in their excellent book, Jehovah and the World of the OT. After my article on the DH came out in Dialogue, I heard from a CES guy who was also doing grad work in Bible somewhere in Florida. He had a student who was also doing grad work in Bible. He had shared my article with his student, and they were able to negotiate their studies just fine, and he was thanking me for the article.

Conversely, he told me that his evangelical friends in the program were just being slaughtered. One guy's faith was so shattered that he was meeting with his pastor on a daily basis trying to stem the damage. My friend tried to gently suggest that the Bible can be reliable without being inerrant in the classical sense, but he refused to even consider such a thing, as Biblical inerrancy was the ground of his faith in the first place.

Lucky for these guys I didn't have a BYU administrator telling me not to publish that article...

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Lucky for these guys I didn't have a BYU administrator telling me not to publish that article...

Yeah, Dana and every other professor in ANES at BYU taught Documentary Hypothesis, among other possible views. I would even say they were on the cutting edge of challenges and enhancements to it. They really kept up on that stuff. It is, of all tings, the least controversial item to me.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Matthew J. Tandy

[John Ping Pong]

Conversely, he told me that his evangelical friends in the program were just being slaughtered. One guy's faith was so shattered that he was meeting with his pastor on a daily basis trying to stem the damage.

Here I am reminded of Dr. Bart Ehrman who, though doubtless brilliant, nevertheless found his evangelical religious beliefs shattered upon coming to the realization in his graduate degree program that the Bible might have errors in it.

Though I sympathize with his plight, this is at least one aspect of scholarly biblical studies that should not impede the faith of Latter-day Saints, but rather to strengthen it.

[wenglund]

Though I sympathize with his plight, this is at least one aspect of scholarly biblical studies that should not impede the faith of Latter-day Saints, but rather to strengthen it.

Wouldn't that depend, to some degree, on how fundamentalist in their thinking is an LDS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

Lucky for these guys I didn't have a BYU administrator telling me not to publish that article...

I majored in History and Minored in Near Eastern studies at BYU. Outside of my own personal readings in scholarly work, my first classroom exposure to the Documentary Hypothesis came after I left BYU in 1998 and began my graduate studies. As I believe I've shared before, your article gave me a lot of hope that I was not alone in trying to place these issues in the context of my faith.

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by David Bokovoy

[David Bokovoy]

Yeah, Dana and every other professor in ANES at BYU taught Documentary Hypothesis, among other possible views. I would even say they were on the cutting edge of challenges and enhancements to it. They really kept up on that stuff. It is, of all tings, the least controversial item to me.

Ok, but I'm curious how they taught it Matt.  Edited March 3, 2014 by David Bokovoy

[robuchan]

Though I sympathize with his plight, this is at least one aspect of scholarly biblical studies that should not impede the faith of Latter-day Saints, but rather to strengthen it.

I really don't see anything faith strengthening about learning for example the Old Testament was written by guys with names like J and P no earlier than 1,000 BC, that important Old Testament stories can be traced to other sources with the mythical aspects identified, that some guy named Q was the one that really wrote the New Testament and that a lot of the stuff we think Jesus did and said that prophets and apostles have quoted were likely inserted by someone with an agenda after the fact.

Sure it might be tougher for an Evangelical to deal with it, but we're not far behind in how we define prophets and revelation and scripture.

[David Bokovoy]

Yeah, Dana and every other professor in ANES at BYU taught Documentary Hypothesis, among other possible views. I would even say they were on the cutting edge of challenges and enhancements to it. They really kept up on that stuff. It is, of all tings, the least controversial item to me.

Would you mind sharing what were the "other possible views" you were taught?

[Bob Crockett]

While I will not mention his name, there is an Egyptologist (not John Gee) who once shared with me that while his main interest was Hebrew Bible, he chose Egyptology in order to avoid facing such issues as the Documentary Hypothesis and that in his opinion, we as Latter-day Saints can't really learn anything from non-LDS scholars about the Bible.

Probably because General Authorities, Elder Oaks included, have gone on the record to say that the received text in the English form known as the KJV is, of itself, inspired. Oaks, Scripture Reading and Revelation, Ensign Jan. 1995. Perhaps the 72 elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 70 days were inspired. Perhaps, therefore, all the Greek and Hebrew exegesis in the world today is the sort of "ever learning and never" etc. business we read about in modern revelation.

I'm no Luddite, and I know Joseph Smith himself studied Hebrew to have a better understanding of the Bible, but that was Joseph Smith. As for the eunuch of Queen Candace, I doubt Phillip had to do much exegesis to convince him. Nor did the fellow likely speak Greek or Hebrew. Well, I take that back. He was reading the Septuagint.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[David Bokovoy]

Probably because General Authorities, Elder Oaks included, have gone on the record to say that the received text in the English form known as the KJV is, of itself, inspired. Oaks, Scripture Reading and Revelation, Ensign Jan. 1995. Perhaps the 72 elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 70 days were inspired. Perhaps, therefore, all the Greek and Hebrew exegesis in the world today is the sort of "ever learning and never" etc. business we read about in modern revelation.

I'm no Luddite, and I know Joseph Smith himself studied Hebrew to have a better understanding of the Bible, but that was Joseph Smith. As for the eunuch of Queen Candace, I doubt Phillip had to do much exegesis to convince him. Nor did the fellow likely speak Greek or Hebrew.

Yes, Joseph did have strong feelings on these matters. No question...

“Spent the day at school. The Lord blessed us in our studies. This day we commenced reading in our Hebrew Bibles with much success. It seems as if the Lord opens our minds in a marvelous manner, to understand His word in the original language; and my prayer is that God will speedily endow us with a knowledge of all languages and tongues, that His servants may go forth for the last time the better prepared to bind up the law, and seal up the testimony.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.27, p.376

[Calm]

But "inspired" isn't omniscient. If we can learn how to be better Christians from the examples of some nonLDS, how does not being LDS prevent someone from being inspired in ways that could help us learn more in their understanding of the Bible, even nonLDS scholars?

[David Bokovoy]

Another favorite quote of mine from the Prophet on this issue:

"My soul delights in reading the word of the Lord in the original, and I am determined to persue the study of languages untill I shall become master of them, if I am permitted to live long enough, at any rate so long as I do live I am determined to make this my object, and with the blessing of God I shall succed to my satisfaction." Journal, February 17th, 1836.

Edited June 27, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[ERayR]

But "inspired" isn't omniscient. If we can learn how to be better Christians from the examples of some nonLDS, how does not being LDS prevent someone from being inspired in ways that could help us learn more in their understanding of the Bible, even nonLDS scholars?

All of this makes me wonder what is going on with a certain faction of the church membership. It seems that wherever I turn lately I am hearing we should do something or change something so we can accomodate, attract or do not anger non-members. How far do we go to be popular?