Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's a fair caricaturization of the Maxwell Institute. I think the break was much more over tone than anything with apparently Mormon Stories being at the heart of the matter.

In any case there's still The Interpreter and FAIR. I don't think you can neglect those.

Yes the tone has changed and the scholarship and topics have changed as well.  The old apologists are still involved in The Interpreter and FAIR, you're correct, but they don't have the official backing of the LDS institution.  To me this is a sign that the hardliners have lost the war, they are still fighting battles, but outside the main arena now.  

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

By and large it's because they think one should adopt the best explanation or at least the ones that seem most likely. Apologetics by its very nature doesn't do that. It can show why it's rational to believe, but makes no claims of being the best explanation in terms of naturalism.

Apologetics by its very nature wants everyone to accept their explanations as the best explanations.  You're saying they don't make claims that their explanations are the best?  Its implied in the language of the apologetic that they have an "answer to the question" this is how all the FAIR topics are approached as answers to questions that the critics pose.  They never present topics on their pages in a more objective manner.  Thats a criticism I've had of FAIR in the past, until I finally realized that they can't be more objective about the topics because their mission statement is to defend the church, that is the point of FAIR, its a defense not a dispassionate approach to controversies.  

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes the tone has changed and the scholarship and topics have changed as well.  The old apologists are still involved in The Interpreter and FAIR, you're correct, but they don't have the official backing of the LDS institution.  To me this is a sign that the hardliners have lost the war, they are still fighting battles, but outside the main arena now.  

I confess I don't see that - especially if the concern was primarily tone. I think they have emphasized a broader focus on hermeneutics and exegesis than the more apologetic focused one of FARMS. But I don't see that as a bad thing. Nor do I see FAIR or The Interpreter as out of the mainstream.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by war here either.

Quote

Apologetics by its very nature wants everyone to accept their explanations as the best explanations.

I don't think I could possibly agree with that.

Quote

You're saying they don't make claims that their explanations are the best?  Its implied in the language of the apologetic that they have an "answer to the question" this is how all the FAIR topics are approached as answers to questions that the critics pose.  

But saying they have an answer is a far cry from saying they have the answer. Further apologists disagree on many things with each other. So I don't even understand how that claim could be coherent.

Quote

They never present topics on their pages in a more objective manner.

I don't quite understand how you're using object here.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 4/7/2017 at 1:03 PM, hope_for_things said:

I respect what you've said here, and from what I've read of your posts you are a reasoned and thoughtful person, and I can appreciate what you're saying about the dynamics at play even though I see it differently, admittedly I'm not close to the action or professionally trained like you are.  

I do recognize some of the same issues with the Coe interview that Dehlin conducted, you make reasonable points there.  

For me personally, this may be a generational thing or just the way I'm oriented right now, I see things playing out in the area of Mormon scholarship differently than what you've represented.  The directional change of the Maxwell institute is evidence to me that the tide of those in charge of mainstream Mormon scholarship has shifted.  To me this is symbolic of a larger societal larger trend towards metaphorical approaches to religion, rather than attempts to scientifically prove evidences found in holy texts.  

This is especially true with respect to the BoM, where I'm convinced that the evidence is strongest for this being a purely 19th century work.  There are enough Mormon scholars and thoughtful Mormon thinkers who also see the BoM as a 19th century work that I feel this view will continue to garner legitimacy within Mormonism as time moves forward.  For some people this view is incompatible with authentic Mormonism.  I'm not sure if you fall into this camp or if you are comfortable with those who don't believe in BoM historicity.  

I'm not seeking to convince anyone that the BoM doesn't have an ancient antecedent, even though I don't think it does personally.  I'm not expecting my views to be mainstreamed in Sunday School Mormonism or at the academy.  I would like and hope for respect for those like me who don't find the evidence compelling.  

I completely agree with you that there is a social dimension to rationality, but I don't believe that explains the reasons that mainstream science hasn't found Mormon scholarship on this topic compelling.  The shift of directions for the Maxwell institute at BYU is evidence of a changing strategy.   Unless some major new discovery happens that changes the game, I think the evidence so far is pretty conclusive about BoM historicity, and that evidence does not support it.  

 

Other than being an English Major and a Technical Writer, I am not professionally trained.  I'm an amateur scholar, but I have published dozens of essays, under the editorship of professionally trained scholars.  I do think it is important to support generalizations by pointing to specifics, rather than to suppose that generalizations have any authority just in the expression.  That is why I linked several essays in the course of this discussion.  And I find it telling that in your responses, you have not acknowledged their contents and implications.  And that tells me that its not so much the weight of the evidence but the appeal of the narrative that is the main thing, not what goes into the CPU, or the outputs, or what happens inside the CPU, but that the CPU label sounds impressive.

Both Sorenson and Nibley have bluntly stated in their books that they are not trying to prove, but to better understand holy texts.  There is a huge difference and the business of "controlling the narrative" involves something else entirely.  LDS scholars of historicity have not failed to prove the Book of Mormon due to lack of evidence, but are actively involved in showing how close reading and careful contextualization expands our understanding.  Those who seek to close the door on that sort of endeavor find the "trying to prove" narrative to be politically effective.  But it is not an accurate picture.

The shift at the Maxwell Institute had a social basis.  The new direction is pointed at academic respectability was made with respect to specific social groups and academic trends and specific streams of thought and specific circles. The decision was made by an individual who was not a scholar of ancient things, but a player in the field of academic politics, of comparative religious studies.  Indeed, none of the people involved in the coup had training and expertise in ancient studies. It was not a matter of the weight or quality of the evidence available, but of the social circles which they knew best and in which they wanted to be accepted.  A recent editorial in the current incarnation of the Review specifically stated that they want authors to write for non-LDS academics in way that they approve and find unoffensive, and the same essay specifically encouraged authors to ignore LDS readers.  In the meantime, with the success of the Interpreter, exploration of historicity continues. 

Regarding LDS members and historicity, I have several times published my views that:

Quote

I do not think that you have to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon to find it valuable and inspired, nor do I think that you must believe in the historicity in the Book of Mormon to be a Mormon, nor that belief alone suffices to make you a good person, nor that disbelief makes you a bad person. It should be possible to critique a particular reading or approach to the Book of Mormon without necessarily depreciating the Book of Mormon as scripture. But while a range of factors in our spiritual lives can serve to sustain individual commitment to a community, we must recognize that it is the Book of Mormon that defines this community.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

I've written about how Alma 32 encourages readers to start with any portion of the word.  Which portion is left to each reader.

However, the way we contextualize the Book of Mormon makes a difference in how we understand the text.  The most important generalization that I take from all that I have read since I got serious in 1975 after reading Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon is that the better we understand the contexts that the Book of Mormon claims for itself, but better we understand the text.  That is the whole point of my own work, with Barker's Temple Theology and the Jerusalem 600 BCE setting.  I linked a BYU Studies essay by Margaret Barker herself, giving her own 2005 reaction to the Book of Mormon in the Jersualem 600 BCE context, and your response was silence.  Not a careful reading or even an acknowledgement that something significant exists.  Not even as a problem to solve.  That is what happens when the preferred political/social narrative controls what gets noticed and weighed in the balance.   Something that does not fit the preferred political/social narrative does not count as evidence, does not even get examined.

When I read ambitious and well meaning attempts to treat the Book of Mormon as a 19th century text, like Thomas's Digging in Cumorah, I find that it falls far short, and suffers badly in comparison, leading to significant misreadings and judgments.  Even Grant Hardy's close sympathetic reading, (Understanding the Book of Mormon) while excellent and valuable, displays to my eyes, weakness in places where careful contextualization in specific historical contexts can and should make a difference.  The soil in which the seed is planted, and the nurture, makes a difference in the harvest, sometimes a hundred fold difference.

Invitations are, by their inherent nature, not compelling.  Nothing I do or say can compel you to click a link to read or consider Margaret Barker's response to the Book of Mormon.  I cannot compel you to plant the seed, nor nurture it, nor watch the ongoing harvest, nor taste what I consider the remarkable fruit.  So your narrative of "Not compelling" and "the evidence is pretty conclusive" also has aspects that can be looked at from a variety of angles, many of which can be revealing and telling.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[clarkgoble]

To add to why I think your characterization of the Maxwell Institute is wrong, I'd just point to this issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. It's very apologetic in nature.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/6/2017 at 10:42 AM, hope_for_things said:

Fair enough, however, I think many of the arguments of Mormonism over the years have attempted to cherry pick elements of mainstream science to legitimize their arguments, in the same way that FIRM is doing.  The FIRM folks seem to be only a few generations behind the mainstream Mormon scholars as far as how they approach scientific cherry picking.  

Go back in time 50 - 75 years and look at mainstream Mormon apologetics for the BoM, BoA, age of the earth, evolution, you name it and you can find many mainstream Mormon arguments that mirror the current FIRM arguments.  

And that is why your grandchildren will understand Mormonism as I do now.

How's that for pride?

Please resume.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see that - especially if the concern was primarily tone. I think they have emphasized a broader focus on hermeneutics and exegesis than the more apologetic focused one of FARMS. But I don't see that as a bad thing. Nor do I see FAIR or The Interpreter as out of the mainstream.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by war here either.

You acknowledge the change in focus and tone.  I see this as emblematic of a broader shift away from the old style apologetics, an evolution, but a sign of greater change to come in the future as well.  I do see FAIR and Interpreter as out of the mainstream.  Nevermind my reference to war, bad analogy on my part, I was trying to say that those pushing for a continuation of the old apologetics were overturned when the new direction came in.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But saying they have an answer is a far cry from saying they have the answer. Further apologists disagree on many things with each other. So I don't even understand how that claim could be coherent.

The layout is question and answer.  Just reading through a couple pages of content to refresh my memory and I don't see any language that gives me the impression that these are just some possible answers, the layout is question then THE ANSWER.  When I used the word objective, I'm saying that they aren't trying to present a set of possible explanations for people to consider, they are trying to show you exactly what the faithful answers to critical questions are.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

To add to why I think your characterization of the Maxwell Institute is wrong, I'd just point to this issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. It's very apologetic in nature.

That's 2013, so shortly after the transition, perhaps thats part of the reason why, or you might be right, perhaps its still more apologetic than I thought, although I think the direction is going away from this kind of work, it might have taken time to transition.  

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And that is why your grandchildren will understand Mormonism as I do now.

How's that for pride?

Please resume.

 

Hoping we can all extend our lifespan to see if these predictions come true! 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Other than being an English Major and a Technical Writer, I am not professionally trained.  I'm an amateur scholar, but I have published dozens of essays, under the editorship of professionally trained scholars.  I do think it is important to support generalizations by pointing to specifics, rather than to suppose that generalizations have any authority just in the expression.  That is why I linked several essays in the course of this discussion.  And I find it telling that in your responses, you have not acknowledged their contents and implications.  And that tells me that its not so much the weight of the evidence but the appeal of the narrative that is the main thing, not what goes into the CPU, or the outputs, or what happens inside the CPU, but that the CPU label sounds impressive.

I wasn't trying to dismiss the things you linked to.  I did read about half the Sorensen paper, and I've read your NDA paper before, but I didn't read the Barker link.  I do appreciate you sharing links with me.  If I'm honest with myself, I'm not going to change my mind in the middle of this thread, but I don't think you'll change yours either.  I learn one small bit at a time, and I'm guessing you do as well.  I read a lot of books listen to a lot of things too, and I think it all has an influence on my perspective.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Both Sorenson and Nibley have bluntly stated in their books that they are not trying to prove, but to better understand holy texts.  There is a huge difference and the business of "controlling the narrative" involves something else entirely.  LDS scholars of historicity have not failed to prove the Book of Mormon due to lack of evidence, but are actively involved in showing how close reading and careful contextualization expands our understanding.  Those who seek to close the door on that sort of endeavor find the "trying to prove" narrative to be politically effective.  But it is not an accurate picture.

I'm not as familiar with Sorensen's work, but Nibley may have said he isn't trying to prove at the same time he's acting as the on point expert apologist to defend the BoA or using ad hominem attacks on Brodie.  So at least for Nibley, I see him as doing both what you're saying as well as trying to prove.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The shift at the Maxwell Institute had a social basis.  The new direction is pointed at academic respectability was made with respect to specific social groups and academic trends and specific streams of thought and specific circles. The decision was made by an individual who was not a scholar of ancient things, but a player in the field of academic politics, of comparative religious studies.  Indeed, none of the people involved in the coup had training and expertise in ancient studies. It was not a matter of the weight or quality of the evidence available, but of the social circles which they knew best and in which they wanted to be accepted.  A recent editorial in the current incarnation of the Review specifically stated that they want authors to write for non-LDS academics in way that they approve and find unoffensive, and the same essay specifically encouraged authors to ignore LDS readers.  In the meantime, with the success of the Interpreter, exploration of historicity continues. 

I think the reason for these changes is based on the social component as you mention, and I'm glad of the desire to be more respected by non-LDS academics, this is a good direction and I applaud it.  I think they will gain more relevance in the broader academic world through this strategy.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

 

Thank you for this, I haven't read your review of the Approaches book, and I will read it.  I also appreciate your statement about the historicity question, and especially back in 1993, that is quite progressive, thank you.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Invitations are, by their inherent nature, are not compelling.  Nothing I do or say can compel you to click a link to read or consider Margaret Barker's response to the Book of Mormon.  I cannot compel you to plant the seed, nor nurture it, nor watch the ongoing harvest, nor taste what I consider the remarkable fruit.  So your narrative of "Not compelling" and "the evidence is pretty conclusive" also has aspects that can be looked at from a variety of angles, many of which can be revealing and telling.

I have to say that I'm not too interested in the Barker approach.  I appreciate that you've found fruit through this approach, this may be a difference in my personality or just what I find interesting.  The evidence for 19th century origins is so strong, I can't find myself taking the ancient parallels seriously anymore, and I'm not going to try and force myself to see something that I just don't find plausible.  I am primarily a naturalist these days.  

I see God very differently, but not through a supernatural lens.  I see Mormonism supporting this view on some levels, the idea that God works through natural means to accomplish things.  I am still working out these concepts in my mind, but the recent book that Ann Taves wrote and that I'm currently reading I've found fascinating on the subject.  Also, I'm a big Richard Van Wagoner fan, absolutely loved his book Natural Born Seer on Joseph, and I also like David Bokovoy and Marcus Borg.  These are some of the more influential people I'm reading, if that gives you an idea what I'm being influenced by, and why I may differ from some other perspectives.    

https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491594222&sr=1-1&keywords=revelatory+events

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Some relevant observations from Kuhn:

Quote

Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. (94)

That is what happened with the Maxwell Institute.  Those who wanted to be part of the academic community engaged in Religious studies, with their interests, subjects and social protocols of not privileging any truth claims in public, chose a different mode of community life.  And never mind what FARMS originally was for and had done successfully for decades or why those who supported it did so.  It happens that Academic Communities oriented towards Religious Studies and the social protocols that go with them already existed and those who wanted to participate could already do so and could have done so without disrupting the original Maxwell Institute mission and charter.  But the resources happened to be available for the taking, if one's moral compass could swing that way.

Quote

When it repudiates a paradigm, a scientific community simultaneously renounces, as a fit subject for scientific scrutiny, most of the articles and books in which that paradigm had been embodied.  (167)

Hence the labels and generalizations about "Old FARMS" do not, from my perspective, accurately represent what is actually there.  Rather, such labels and misgeneralizations serve a narrative that justifies the new order.  And given that a paradigm is defined by "standard examples" of scientific work that embodies "methods, problems fields, and standards of solution", that is, a representative story, a parable, a myth or story that sustains what Joseph Campbell notes is, a particular social order.  So it pays, I think, to pay attention to the construction of narratives, and the control of narratives.

I do find this statement of yours very revealing as well:

Quote

The evidence for 19th century origins is so strong, I can't find myself taking the ancient parallels seriously anymore, and I'm not going to try and force myself to see something that I just don't find plausible.

Nibley pointed out back in 1953 that the science devoted to the authentication of purportedly ancient documents, built on the flood of such things brought to Europe by the returning Crusaders and providing the foundation of the Renaissance required the starting assumption for viable and effective testing that the document was indeed what it purported to be.  In such a case, Nibley notes, while final proof is not possible, a document's features become testable.  With a 19th Century approach, this quality disappears.  The features no longer become testable.  That is a conspicuous difference between the approaches of Robert Price, who begins by comparing the Book of Mormon to the recovery of the Book of the Law Josiah as a model of pious fraud, and Margaret Barker, who begins by by considering Jerusalem and 600 BCE as a context against which to compare the Book of Mormon. Does it fit?  That is not just a matter of compiling ancient parallels and ignoring differences, but evaluating a complex fit in which everything has to make sense in a specific time and place and culture.  And a very interesting thing that I found in comparing their essays is that 1) It didn't even occur to Price to notice that such a direct comparison involving time and place was even possible, and 2) everything that Price discussed as evidence of Joseph Smith's "cut and paste" method turns out to belong naturally in the First Temple context.  (I have an essay forth coming on this topic eventually.)   I don't find the 19th century approach overwhelming because I have carefully tested the results of several notable arguments against historicity and have consistently found that the inherent pitfalls that Nibley predicted in 1953 always emerge.  Always.  Like clockwork.  And no 19th century approach that I have explored adequately predicts and account for features of the text that only emerge in testing against ancient contexts.  Reporting that a 19th century approach is subjectively "overwhelming" is not the same thing as demonstrating that such an approach is better.  Particularly if you admit that you haven't read important things like Mormon's Codex and Barker's work.

Quote

"particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed."  (154)

I'll read Taves, download her recent book to my Kindle, and perhaps review it book for Interpreter.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 8, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[Rajah Manchou]

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And where does Jenkins say anything final and definitive about this?

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

I've always found those seals interesting. But where does anyone say anything final and definitive about them? That paper was written in 1970 and there has been hardly anything, that I could find, written about the seals since. This is an opportunity for Mormon scholars to dig in and pull out solid evidence. Its not on Jenkins to do it.

[Kevin Christensen]

In reading through the introduction to Taves's new book, I ran across this:

Quote

In the first part of this book, I write as a historian; in the second part, I enter into the fray,drawing on the methods and findings from the natural and social sciences to explain the emergence of these new spiritual paths in naturalistic terms.

Which brings to my mind this from Kuhn:

Quote

In short, consciously or not, the decision to use a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.  (Kuhn 59) 

So I can expect a naturalistic approach and framework.  And I expect that the kinds of things I find decisive and telling will emerge not only in the interpretation of historical accounts but in other questions and issues that quite simply will not get tested or explored because they are outside the realm of inquiry, outside her approved methods, problem field and standards of solution.  So it remains important to understand how a paradigm provides a map that contains some of the instructions for map-making, and how to evaluate which of two or more competing maps is better without recourse to those self-contained instructions for map-making.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[mfbukowski]

On 4/7/2017 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

That is what happened with the Maxwell Institute.  Those who wanted to be part of the academic community engaged in Religious studies, with their interests, subjects and social protocols of not privileging any truth claims in public, chose a different mode of community life.  And never mind what FARMS originally was for and had done successfully for decades or why those who supported it did so.  It happens that Academic Communities oriented towards Religious Studies and the social protocols that go with them already existed and those who wanted to participate could already do so and could have done so without disrupting the original Maxwell Institute mission and charter.  But the resources happened to be available for the taking, if one's moral compass could swing that way.

Hence the labels and generalizations about "Old FARMS" do not, from my perspective, accurately represent what is actually there.  Rather, such labels and misgeneralizations serve a narrative that justifies the new order.  And given that a paradigm is defined by "standard examples" of scientific work that embodies "methods, problems fields, and standards of solution", that is, a representative story, a parable, a myth or story that sustains what Joseph Campbell notes is, a particular social order.  So it pays, I think, to pay attention to the construction of narratives, and the control of narratives.

I had an odd experience around that time that verifies what you are saying here, when the old guard apologists came out of favor specifically because they WERE apologists with firm opinions on what was "true" and what was not, rather than adopting a neutral academic posture.  I think few realize that this is the reason few scholars post here any more since it is an apologist board and apologetics is less acceptable in academia because of this social shift you are discussing.

I was participating on a thread on this very board which included some very prominent young Mormon scholars who have grown more prominent since then and grown from being graduate students to established scholars.  Several months after the thread died due to natural causes, I received a PM from one of the scholars who has since become even more prominent now than he was, asking me to go back through the thread and delete comments of his which I had quoted in making my comments.  He noted that he had already contacted everyone else on the thread to also delete his comments.

I did as he asked, without understanding what was going on but later I realized why he asked me to do that, and my conclusion was what you are suggesting here.

The "in crowd" was no longer doing apologetics and he no longer wanted to be associated with apologetics, and he wanted his history revised.   It must have taken quite a lot of effort and persuasion to do that.  I considered leaving everything as it was but I knuckled under eventually.   I have copies somewhere.

Edited April 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

Kevin Christensen says:  "Mormons scholars and scientists like Sorenson and Gardner do follow the standard rules and methods, which they learned and internalized in the process of getting their degrees and training from non-LDS schools and publishing in non-LDS journals. "
They don't claim to use the scientific method.  In a post nearly a year ago to Brant, I said:  "I think you've hit upon the very most important reason why I object to Dr. Sorenson's books, as this is the very methodology he uses.  'But other scenarios or models are possible.  The one elaborated in this book offers an alternative theory for the development of civilization in Mesoamerica.  Whether it or the normative evolutionary model or some other position is to be accepted depends on a prudent assessment of what is most plausible, not on mere popularity.'  Codex, 65-66."  The scientific method does not array possible theories and then pick the "most plausible."  It would be akin to arraying the possible theories of aliens visiting Earth and then picking the one "most plausible" as something to spend one's life defending.  

It is hard to explain briefly the scientific method, and certainly the scientific method is no guarantee of establishing the truth, but it is the minimal basis of theorizing permitted in a peer-reviewed sense.  Whether a particular theory is founded in the scientific method relies on such things as reasonably verifiable and reproducible, accepted or at least not objected to by peers (it doesn't have to be a majority view), and set forth as a reasonable conclusion given the evidence.  Dr. Sorenson repeatedly couches his conclusions as "plausible" or "most plausible," meaning that it is better than alternative theories.  That is not a conclusion based in science.  Dr. Sorenson knows how to write peer-reviewed material as he has authored significant texts on diffusionist biology, and he does not couch his conclusions as "most plausible."  In his diffusionist works, he shows the genetic similarities between, say, a chicken in South American and one in China.  Peers can then reproduce his conclusions, even though they are a minority view on the edge of being crackpot.  In terms of peer acceptance, I am aware of LDS anthropologists who do not consider Dr. Sorenson's views supported by the scientific method (the Mathenys) and I am not aware of a single anthroplogist in or out of BYU who agrees with Dr. Sorenson except perhaps Dr. Mark Wright who teaches in the Religion Department, but in a recent Interpreter he took exception to some of Dr. Sorenson's conclusions.

A comparison of an ancient text to real-world conditions is a fairly arcane science, but there are folks who do it.  Dr. Sorenson did not use any of their apparent statistical methodology, although I am not a linguist and not really able to explain how Dr. Sorenson fails in this area.

Kevin says:  "Other than being an English Major and a Technical Writer, I am not professionally trained.  I'm an amateur scholar, but I have published dozens of essays, under the editorship of professionally trained scholars. "  Well, I have worked as an engineer and I hire archaeologists and anthropologists for some of my matters.   Dr. Sorenson's and Brant's work aren't science.  They are are works of speculation, such as that which supports the Shroud of Turin, the Illuminati and Atlantis.   There may be truth, and they may appeal to science, but it isn't science.  Mr. Meldrum appeals to science but that doesn't mean his work withstands the rigor of scientific review.

Kevin says:  "Indeed, none of the people involved in the coup had training and expertise in ancient studies."  It was not a "coup" at the Maxwell Institute.  Dr. Peterson was removed from the editorship of the Review after having been given an offer to remain on the Board.  A coup implies somebody took over control of the Maxwell Institute, ousting somebody rightfully in control.  That wasn't the case.  The Maxwell Board and BYU were in control, and were always in control.  The old Review had no business being on BYU's campus as it was not an academic journal.  I certainly appreciated the old Review and was a "Platinum" donor, but the change did not surprise me.

Kevin says this about the the new Maxwell guard:  ". . . social protocols of not privileging any truth claims in public . . .if one's moral compass could swing that way."  This is more than an implication but says that the new Maxwell Institute is not interested in the truth and has an immoral outlook on life.   Not so.  Militant apologia, written often and mostly by laymen without qualification (myself included; one of my own articles were published by Dr. Peterson) just has no place in a major university.   I was one of Dr. Welch's first research assistants and saw what was going on.  FARMS morphed into an interesting organization studying similarities between Book of Mormon scripture and Old World and New World motifs into hit pieces (again, my own articles were just such) by laymen.

I greatly respect what you've done over the years but I must rise to the defense of BYU.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[clarkgoble]

Even though I know people on both sides of the Maxwell Institute controversy I'll fully admit I don't know the details of what happened. Nor, frankly, do I care that much. I thought it was a mistake for FARMS to associate with BYU and become the Maxwell Institute in the first place.  From my eyes once they did that something like what happened was inevitable simply because of the very different incentives and issues of PR. I don't think that says anything about how mainstream apologetics are. I'm not even sure how one could tell how mainstream it is. I think FAIR took up a lot of what FARMS had been doing in the 90's, only with perhaps a slightly better tone most of the time well before the divisions happened. I'm glad the Interpreter started up since FAIR didn't have any journals only their conference. 

While I disagree with some of Bob's points, his more general point about what's appropriate at BYU I do tend to agree with. Indeed that was partially why I opposed BYU taking over FARMS, although of course not being a part of FARMS my views meant nothing. I think that while in theory the process could have led to more rigorous apologetic work from a more 'objective tone' it was rather unlikely that'd have occurred. Certainly during that era of the Maxwell Institute publications there were quite a few papers I was shocked and disappointed to see published. The fact they came out of journal published by BYU reflected sadly on BYU. I'd still like to see more apologetic work done from a perspective of 'objective tone' and 'engaging all the evidence.' That is fully acknowledging weaknesses in argument, clearly communicating that, and having a tone not tied to arguing with foes on an emotional level but engaging with the questions themselves.  It's of course true that academics in general doesn't always achieve that either even in the fields I engage with it should.

To the more complex issue of science and the "scientific method" I think there's a lot there. I'd just say that science as done in the so-called hard sciences and science as done in the more historical fields are pretty significantly different. To the degree that I often think applying the term "science" to the latter can often be questionable. That's not to deny good work there in the least. Just that when one puts up an opposition between "most plausible" and "verifiable" I think there are some pretty huge philosophical issues at play. To the point that I think there's a lot of muddying the water. The reality is that in those fields "most plausible" is the usual standard and repeatable tests in any scientific sense, while welcome, are often quite rare. The place one might well debate with Brant isn't on reproducibility in a scientific sense but what is "most plausible" given the evidence. I think the problem with a lot of apologetic works has more often been excluding evidence or being a little too optimistic in what is most plausible given the evidence. To try and portray this as an issue of science, while true in a few cases, is more typically simply making the waters even murkier than they already are.

More often (and more defensibly) apologists including Brant are simply making the "plausible" charge. One doesn't need to look far to find disagreements among apologists. So for instance Brant was rather critical of several of Sorenson's latest arguments. That's healthy and actually in many ways is part of what ought be happening in academic fields. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

On 4/7/2017 at 6:14 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

That is what happened with the Maxwell Institute.  Those who wanted to be part of the academic community engaged in Religious studies, with their interests, subjects and social protocols of not privileging any truth claims in public, chose a different mode of community life.  And never mind what FARMS originally was for and had done successfully for decades or why those who supported it did so.  It happens that Academic Communities oriented towards Religious Studies and the social protocols that go with them already existed and those who wanted to participate could already do so and could have done so without disrupting the original Maxwell Institute mission and charter.  But the resources happened to be available for the taking, if one's moral compass could swing that way.

The reason they chose to not privilege truth claims in the new direction was two fold.  1.  Pragmatically, they want respectability in the broader culture and the old model was not giving them that respectability in a scholarly world.  2.  Mormon truth claims, just like truth claims of any other authoritarian religion are impossible to prove, and wise minds understand this.

On 4/7/2017 at 6:14 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Hence the labels and generalizations about "Old FARMS" do not, from my perspective, accurately represent what is actually there.  Rather, such labels and misgeneralizations serve a narrative that justifies the new order.  And given that a paradigm is defined by "standard examples" of scientific work that embodies "methods, problems fields, and standards of solution", that is, a representative story, a parable, a myth or story that sustains what Joseph Campbell notes is, a particular social order.  So it pays, I think, to pay attention to the construction of narratives, and the control of narratives.

We all write a narrative that is only an approximation of reality from our perspective.  You're writing a narrative too, based on your interpretation of the events and your observations.  You disagree with my narrative of the changing changes at the Maxwell Institute.  I'm no insider, these are just my observations from afar.  

On 4/7/2017 at 6:14 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Nibley pointed out back in 1953 that the science devoted to the authentication of purportedly ancient documents, built on the flood of such things brought to Europe by the returning Crusaders and providing the foundation of the Renaissance required the starting assumption for viable and effective testing that the document was indeed what it purported to be.  In such a case, Nibley notes, while final proof is not possible, a document's features become testable.  With a 19th Century approach, this quality disappears.  The features no longer become testable.  That is a conspicuous difference between the approaches of Robert Price, who begins by comparing the Book of Mormon to the recovery of the Book of the Law Josiah as a model of pious fraud, and Margaret Barker, who begins by by considering Jerusalem and 600 BCE as a context against which to compare the Book of Mormon. Does it fit?  That is not just a matter of compiling ancient parallels and ignoring differences, but evaluating a complex fit in which everything has to make sense in a specific time and place and culture.  And a very interesting thing that I found in comparing their essays is that 1) It didn't even occur to Price to notice that such a direct comparison involving time and place was even possible, and 2) everything that Price discussed as evidence of Joseph Smith's "cut and paste" method turns out to belong naturally in the First Temple context.  (I have an essay forth coming on this topic eventually.)   I don't find the 19th century approach overwhelming because I have carefully tested the results of several notable arguments against historicity and have consistently found that the inherent pitfalls that Nibley predicted in 1953 always emerge.  Always.  Like clockwork.  And no 19th century approach that I have explored adequately predicts and account for features of the text that only emerge in testing against ancient contexts.  Reporting that a 19th century approach is subjectively "overwhelming" is not the same thing as demonstrating that such an approach is better.  Particularly if you admit that you haven't read important things like Mormon's Codex and Barker's work.

My answer for all the ancient parallels that people find with the BoM is really quite simple.  Humans are good at finding parallels and connections for things that in reality were never connected.  The human mind is extremely creative.  I honestly don't see anything overly complicated about my simple explanation.  I believe Joseph to be a highly creative and adaptive individual, pulling from all kinds of experiences and readings in very creative ways.  .  

I haven't seen compelling evidence to suggest that Joseph had access to ancient knowledge in some kind of supernatural way.  Every theory put forth over the years by defenders of supernatural knowledge to support religious claims has eventually been explained in natural terms.  This is not unique to Mormonism, but to all religions.  I believe as we continue to advance in our understanding of the world there will be natural explanations for everything, its only a matter of time to discover these explanations.  

On 4/7/2017 at 6:14 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

I'll read Taves, download her recent book to my Kindle, and perhaps review it book for Interpreter.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks, once you do this can you also report back on that review, I would be very interested in reading it and I haven't seen anyone else review the book yet.  In one of her footnotes where she's discussing the First Vision narrative, she points to an essay that I just read this weekend, a discussion between her and Steven Harper.  I found it important supplementary material.  

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen?pub=3772&index=7

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

On 4/9/2017 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

So I can expect a naturalistic approach and framework.  And I expect that the kinds of things I find decisive and telling will emerge not only in the interpretation of historical accounts but in other questions and issues that quite simply will not get tested or explored because they are outside the realm of inquiry, outside her approved methods, problem field and standards of solution.  So it remains important to understand how a paradigm provides a map that contains some of the instructions for map-making, and how to evaluate which of two or more competing maps is better without recourse to those self-contained instructions for map-making.

Yes, I think Taves would agree with this as well, and it is important to point out.  From a scholarly perspective I think evaluating which method is better should be based on more quantitative and objective analysis including peer review and scientific rigor.  

From a personal religious perspective, which method is best might be based on a number of different approaches, democratic methods, practical methods, all kinds of qualitative measures could be used to determine the best method.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I had an odd experience around that time that verifies what you are saying here, when the old guard apologists came out of favor specifically because they WERE apologists with firm opinions on what was "true" and what was not, rather than adopting a neutral academic posture.  I think few realize that this is the reason few scholars post here any more since it is an apologist board and apologetics is less acceptable in academia because of this social shift you are discussing.

I was participating on a thread on this very board which included some very prominent young Mormon scholars who have grown more prominent since then and grown from being graduate students to established scholars.  Several months after the thread died due to natural causes, I received a PM from one of the scholars who has since become even more prominent now than he was, asking me to go back through the thread and delete comments of his which I had quoted in making my comments.  He noted that he had already contacted everyone else on the thread to also delete his comments.

I did as he asked, without understanding what was going on but later I realized why he asked me to do that, and my conclusion was what you are suggesting here.

The "in crowd" was no longer doing apologetics and he no longer wanted to be associated with apologetics, and he wanted his history revised.   It must have taken quite a lot of effort and persuasion to do that.  I considered leaving everything as it was but I knuckled under eventually.   I have copies somewhere.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing.  Out of curiosity, where do you think these new Mormon scholars congregate for discussions these days?  I'm curious because personally, I'm not too interested in apologetics, but I am interested in the new approaches to things.  Are you aware of other message boards where these kinds of discussions are taking place among the new guard?  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Kevin says:  "Other than being an English Major and a Technical Writer, I am not professionally trained.  I'm an amateur scholar, but I have published dozens of essays, under the editorship of professionally trained scholars. "  Well, I have worked as an engineer and I hire archaeologists and anthropologists for some of my matters.   Dr. Sorenson's and Brant's work aren't science.  They are are works of speculation, such as that which supports the Shroud of Turin, the Illuminati and Atlantis.   There may be truth, and they may appeal to science, but it isn't science.  Mr. Meldrum appeals to science but that doesn't mean his work withstands the rigor of scientific review.

Thanks Bob for your comments.  I made a comparison earlier about the FIRM group (Meldrum et al.) is doing by cherry picking science to support their claims, and I compared that to how an outsider might view other Mormon apologists like Sorenson.  While this comparison isn't an exact match, I got a lot of push back from other commentators about this comparison.  Any thoughts from your perspective?  

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Fascinating, thanks for sharing.  Out of curiosity, where do you think these new Mormon scholars congregate for discussions these days?  I'm curious because personally, I'm not too interested in apologetics, but I am interested in the new approaches to things.  Are you aware of other message boards where these kinds of discussions are taking place among the new guard?  

They all sit at the cool table for lunch. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They all sit at the cool table for lunch. 

I don't need to eat lunch at their table, I just want to be a fly on the wall listening to the conversation.  :-) 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The reason they chose to not privilege truth claims in the new direction was two fold.  1.  Pragmatically, they want respectability in the broader culture and the old model was not giving them that respectability in a scholarly world.  2.  Mormon truth claims, just like truth claims of any other authoritarian religion are impossible to prove, and wise minds understand this.

Not sure how "authoritarian" fits into that but I might be missing something as to why non-heirarchal religions like Islam or Judaism can prove more than hierarchal ones like Catholicism or Mormonism can.

Again not knowing the details of what happen beyond a lot of it having to do with tone I'll just say that what counts as respectability will vary significantly depending upon the field. If the focus was to move to a kind of broad "religious studies" then I think people in many fields will find it impossible to have respect. That's a pretty limited field with in many ways fairly narrow appeal. I'm skeptical that is the goal of the Maxwell Institute but if it is then I bet this more literary and social approach will soon fizzle.

Quote

I believe Joseph to be a highly creative and adaptive individual, pulling from all kinds of experiences and readings in very creative ways.  .  I haven't seen compelling evidence to suggest that Joseph had access to ancient knowledge in some kind of supernatural way.  Every theory put forth over the years by defenders of supernatural knowledge to support religious claims has eventually been explained in natural terms.  This is not unique to Mormonism, but to all religions.

The problem is that of course by the early 19th century most traditions were available in some way. We might argue something is very implausible for Joseph to know, but because it's always potentially knowable from his environment given the choice of "supernatural" or "he picked it up from the environment" the latter will always be privileged. Put an other way it's an unfalsifiable thesis that will always gauge the evidences put forward. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But any apologist -- or Mormon for that matter -- who thinks there will ever be evidence compelling for people to rejudge their conclusions are sadly mistaken. The only way to readjust what is plausible is to first have absolute proof of revelation, angels and the like. That's not coming therefore now matter how implausible it may seem to a Mormon the non-divine will always be seen as the most plausible.

It reminds me of a story that I think originated with Douglas Adams. A person was in a locked room in an asylum. He couldn't control himself from writing the stock figures for the previous day's Dow Jones closing. Now since it was the previous day's figures there was no way to prove that he wasn't getting the data from somewhere else. The fact that he was in a room with no access to radio or newspapers meant nothing since of course there was a rational explanation that it was copied from the previous day's paper even if they couldn't explain how.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure how "authoritarian" fits into that but I might be missing something as to why non-heirarchal religions like Islam or Judaism can prove more than hierarchal ones like Catholicism or Mormonism can.

I haven't thought in depth about this, I kind of just threw it out there because it was on my mind over the weekend.  I think the structure makes things more complicated.  

Two interesting quotes from the Maxwell Institute mission statement online.  

Quote

Our mission is to deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints and to promote mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths through the scholarly study of religious texts and traditions.

Quote

We strive for excellence in furthering religious scholarship within the academic world. We hope that our work, particularly on the Book of Mormon and the Bible, will deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints. Our work on religious texts important to other religious traditions aims at promoting mutual respect and goodwill among people of other faiths. In all that we do we strive to further the aims and objectives of BYU.

 

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that of course by the early 19th century most traditions were available in some way. We might argue something is very implausible for Joseph to know, but because it's always potentially knowable from his environment given the choice of "supernatural" or "he picked it up from the environment" the latter will always be privileged. Put an other way it's an unfalsifiable thesis that will always gauge the evidences put forward. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But any apologist -- or Mormon for that matter -- who thinks there will ever be evidence compelling for people to rejudge their conclusions are sadly mistaken. The only way to readjust what is plausible is to first have absolute proof of revelation, angels and the like. That's not coming therefore now matter how implausible it may seem to a Mormon the non-divine will always be seen as the most plausible.

I agree with you that the environmental explanation is privileged today in the 21st century, but I'm not sure it was in 19th.  Joseph Smith and many other restorationists were pushing back against the deists and those who viewed God as inactive in the world.  Hence the 2nd great awaking and the burnt over district.  Within this cultural context and considering the magical world view perspective of many of these people, a large percentage of society was much more supernaturally oriented than our present culture is.  

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It reminds me of a story that I think originated with Douglas Adams. A person was in a locked room in an asylum. He couldn't control himself from writing the stock figures for the previous day's Dow Jones closing. Now since it was the previous day's figures there was no way to prove that he wasn't getting the data from somewhere else. The fact that he was in a room with no access to radio or newspapers meant nothing since of course there was a rational explanation that it was copied from the previous day's paper even if they couldn't explain how.

If there is no way to prove he got the figures through supernatural means, a reasonable person in the 21st century would assume a natural means first, rather than jump to something supernatural.  But in the 19th century, the average person might have assumed a supernatural source.  

 

[clarkgoble]

Quote

Our mission is to deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints and to promote mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths through the scholarly study of religious texts and traditions.

We strive for excellence in furthering religious scholarship within the academic world. We hope that our work, particularly on the Book of Mormon and the Bible, will deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints. Our work on religious texts important to other religious traditions aims at promoting mutual respect and goodwill among people of other faiths. In all that we do we strive to further the aims and objectives of BYU.

Let me note that I don't have problem with what the Maxwell Institute is doing. If you are going to engage in an academic way that does severely constrain what options are open to you. I have some issues with the field in general but that's a whole different issue regarding what exactly is academic at all and what universities should be doing. The last couple of decades have seen the rise of a lot of fields I find rather flimsy and closer to literary criticism and political activism than anything. But that's really a completely different topic. With regard to what they do, while I've not read everything published, I've yet to find something I find objectionable.

While I remain skeptical that all types of apologetics will disappear from the Maxwell Institute, the fact that FAIR and The Interpreter remain actually puts apologetics back on stronger ground IMO. That is I'm not at all convinced this is a bad thing at all and likely will lead to better apologetic scholarship.

On the other hand this is from the latest Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. (Emphasis mine)

Quote

For the most part, work on the Book of Mormon has been driven by a relatively small set of questions and undertaken by scholars working within a relatively small set of disciplines. Thanks to the towering influence of Hugh Nibley, the vast majority of writings on the Book of Mormon have been written with the purpose of defending the historicity of the book. This is true of writings coming from scholars with training or interests either in ancient studies or in nineteenth-century history. Unfortunately, the production of such work has slowed considerably over the past decade. Yet the good news is that this slowing has opened the door for asking a wider range of questions. Ideally, of course, it would be far better if historical-critical work on the Book of Mormon proceeded apace with scholars working in other disciplines as well. Indeed, the field of Book of Mormon studies has ample room to encourage great work on the Book of Mormon from a variety of perspectives and disciplines, including the so-called “traditional” work.

I take this to entail that they don't disparage such defenses but to note (and I agree) that there aren't a lot of new arguments. While I don't want to say there aren't any, because there are, I think the fruitful work that remains is critically engaging with existing arguments so that weak defenses are themselves criticized and discarded if appropriate. I also think a lot of interesting work has been refining old arguments. So some of the work on say cardinal directions or horses as sacred animals for the king rather than something ridden are pretty interesting even if ultimately not new.

Quote

I agree with you that the environmental explanation is privileged today in the 21st century, but I'm not sure it was in 19th.

Depends upon what group you're talking with. As I think I brought up in one of the other threads it's in the 19th century that Evangelical fundamentalism really arises in opposition to how religion evolved within the academic community. Most of the universities were originally religious schools. Yet the type of religion they allowed often treated interventionist acts as at best a thing of that past. Thus a common criticism of Mormonism was "angels in an age of railways?" By the late 19th century Hegelism was the academic religion and the demythologization movement was well underway. (You could argue it was strong before that in Unitarianism and related movements - but by the late 19th century it was the common view in polite academic protestantism) 

Now among the laity it was a whole different ball game. But then that's still true even in our more secular culture. As has been well noted even in highly secular Europe people (other than immigrants) may not be terribly religious, but they are about as superstitious as ever. It's just what they're superstitious about changed. It's funny since in a certain sense as the US becomes more secular it actually may ironically make the so-called "magic world view" of early Mormonism the more respectable aspect as opposed to the more Protestant aspects.

Quote

If there is no way to prove he got the figures through supernatural means, a reasonable person in the 21st century would assume a natural means first, rather than jump to something supernatural.  But in the 19th century, the average person might have assumed a supernatural source. 

I think Adam's point was that the assumption always was of fraud because an unknown phenomena couldn't be countenanced even though that was clearly the simpler explanation. (I found the reference - it was to Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency)

I confess I personally find myself with a similar bewildered attitude to some of the explanations critics give for what Joseph manages to pick up from his environment.

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

" I'm glad the Interpreter started up since FAIR didn't have any journals only their conference."

We actually have something that is called "FairMormon Journal" though it probably qualifies better as a newsletter.  (I assume you know this already, but why pass up an opportunity to promote)

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/fairmormon-journal

The Interpreter fills an important niche.  It was a nice benefit of an unfortunate situation as turning to web publishing greatly improved timeliness and quantity of articles they could put out, imo.

As an aside, I think I will mention also we have started up again our FM news service, three times a week rather than daily (We had one volunteer doing a fantastic daily job until life got too much and no one else had the time to devote to it, finally we broke with tradition and divvied it up and that is working great except an occasional miss by me.  I do the Wednesday (usually sent out wee hours of Thursday, but I generally try to include almost everything at least once) edition which is why I feel driven to mention it:

https://www.fairmormon.org/signup

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

" I'm glad the Interpreter started up since FAIR didn't have any journals only their conference."We actually have something that is called "FairMormon Journal" though it probably qualifies better as a newsletter.  (I assume you know this already, but why pass up an opportunity to promote)

Yup I get the email version. I was more thinking that many of the presentations at the conferences could be papers and it's sad many aren't.

Quote

The Interpreter fills an important niche.  It was a nice benefit of an unfortunate situation as turning to web publishing greatly improved timeliness and quantity of articles they could put out, imo.

As I said, I personally think this might be for the better. If anything I find the quality of papers pretty good coming out of the Interpreter. The whole kerfuffle ended up without having to worry about reflecting on BYU and may have shaken many out of complacency - which is always a good thing.

I'd also add that many papers at The Interpreter are more of the broad typological and literary interpretations that some see as characteristic of the change at Maxwell. So I truly do think there's a lot of overlap between the groups.

Further I find it exciting that there are so many new books coming out. The Interpreter is publishing. Kofford has of course been publishing a lot of good stuff for a few years now. Salt Press has more or less become part of the Maxwell Institute but I always liked their literary takes on scripture. BCC has started up a press. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting. We really are in a renaissance of Mormon scholarship with a pretty fantastic breadth.