Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My question for you would be, Is there a big enough tent for both you and John Gee to coexist, or do you insist that Gee shut up?  Is his approach simply too deleterious to the needs of some people?  Much as I sympathize with your plea to allow a much broader purview, I constantly encounter those who insist that only their POV is allowable and useful.  I have met a number of Mormon apologists who cannot abide any hint of bracketing matters of faith simply so that a secular discussion can take place -- they instantly pounce and claim "apostasy," without an honest allowance for true scholarly values.

I’ll add my two cents on this part.  My problem with Gee is he’s an Egyptologist and his opinions on this topic carry more weight because of his educational background.  

If he were to make it clear that his opinions on the BoA are faith based not scholarly opinions based on his expertise in Egyptology, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with what he’s doing.  

Admittedly I didn’t attend FAIR so I’m speaking more generally to what was reported and what I’ve heard from Gee in the past.  

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While I see evidence of peeks and valleys, like Armand Mauss talks about (retrenchment and assimilation), I see the long term trend away from literalism and from superstition.  Look at how many early Mormon practices like speaking in tongues are completely absent from the contemporary church.  

If there’s been a retrenchment it’s been the solidifying of doctrine through correlation. I have not seen a move away from emphasis on the historicity of the scriptures. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

As l said, I don’t know any more than you do. He could be full of crap. I don’t know. If something like this ever happens, it would be fascinating. 

Fascinating is not the word I would use. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Fascinating is not the word I would use. 

Of course not. You’re invested in the historicity of LDS scripture. Such a move would be fascinating to someone not thus invested, like me. 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If there’s been a retrenchment it’s been the solidifying of doctrine through correlation. I have not seen a move away from emphasis on the historicity of the scriptures. 

I agree that it seems that way when looked at through correlated materials, but I was impressed by how much more diversity there has been over the course of church history on topics like how we view the Bible.  The strains have been there for much more nuanced views.  The resurgence of literalism in the 2nd half of the 20th century by the religious right has influenced Mormonism to some extent as well.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that it seems that way when looked at through correlated materials, but I was impressed by how much more diversity there has been over the course of church history on topics like how we view the Bible.  The strains have been there for much more nuanced views.  The resurgence of literalism in the 2nd half of the 20th century by the religious right has influenced Mormonism to some extent as well.  

Those strains are probably there among the membership at large, but it’s the correlated gospel that matters much more in the end. Doctrine is what the church teaches officially, and I haven’t seen any drift away from the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an actual ancient record of people who really did exist. 

Not meaning to be a contrarian, but the reaction I’ve seen to Bill’s “new narrative” suggests historicity is firmly entrenched. 

[Nevo]

Yeah, I don't see the Church moving away from a historical Book of Mormon anytime soon.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/season-two-filming-of-book-of-mormon-videos-wraps-up?lang=eng

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ll add my two cents on this part.  My problem with Gee is he’s an Egyptologist and his opinions on this topic carry more weight because of his educational background.  

If he were to make it clear that his opinions on the BoA are faith based not scholarly opinions based on his expertise in Egyptology, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with what he’s doing. 

I'm not sure it works quite that way. Surely it is significant that at least some Egyptologists from pretty respected programs don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon coming from the papyri in some sense. Is it absolute? Of course not. However to say it's purely a matter of faith I think is problematic. Especially given that how Mormons approach scripture is so different from say a southern Baptist. For the latter, as you can see in the other thread, there's an assumption it all comes from reason and reading. For a Mormon it's how particular religious experiences change how we interpret the evidence and how we read the text. So honestly I don't think anyone will see Gee and think, "oh, the most rational way to read this is as Gee does." Rather they'll think (or at least should think) that, "hey someone with experiences like me who knows all this historical stuff reads it like I do." 

That's a pretty important distinction I think. That Gee, Rhodes, Smoot and so forth all read things in a particular way surely is significant. Will it be convincing to an unbeliever? Of course not. But that's not really the question, is it?

Of course many us see apologetics as much as about the conclusions and their rationality as providing support to those who may have doubts. So for us the strength of the arguments matters a great deal. In that case degrees ultimately don't matter that much.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure it works quite that way. Surely it is significant that at least some Egyptologists from pretty respected programs don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon coming from the papyri in some sense. Is it absolute? Of course not. However to say it's purely a matter of faith I think is problematic. Especially given that how Mormons approach scripture is so different from say a southern Baptist. For the latter, as you can see in the other thread, there's an assumption it all comes from reason and reading. For a Mormon it's how particular religious experiences change how we interpret the evidence and how we read the text. So honestly I don't think anyone will see Gee and think, "oh, the most rational way to read this is as Gee does." Rather they'll think (or at least should think) that, "hey someone with experiences like me who knows all this historical stuff reads it like I do." 

That's a pretty important distinction I think. That Gee, Rhodes, Smoot and so forth all read things in a particular way surely is significant. Will it be convincing to an unbeliever? Of course not. But that's not really the question, is it?

Of course many us see apologetics as much as about the conclusions and their rationality as providing support to those who may have doubts. So for us the strength of the arguments matters a great deal. In that case degrees ultimately don't matter that much.

 

There is zero compelling evidence that the text of the BoA comes via an actual translation from the papyri fragments that we have today, the Gospel topics essay even admits that point.  How can you say Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion?  

The problem for me is that regular people who don’t study these topics in any depth look at someone like Gee and assume that he’s speaking as an informed scholar with reputable scholarly evidence to back up his claims.  The reality is Gee could never publish his ideas on the BoA in a peer review Egyptological journal, and i venture he wouldn’t even attempt to do that.  Because he knows the scholarly evidence doesn’t support his faith based position.  

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Those strains are probably there among the membership at large, but it’s the correlated gospel that matters much more in the end. Doctrine is what the church teaches officially, and I haven’t seen any drift away from the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an actual ancient record of people who really did exist. 

Not meaning to be a contrarian, but the reaction I’ve seen to Bill’s “new narrative” suggests historicity is firmly entrenched. 

I think it’s very slowly moving in this direction in spite of the strong opinions and push back by some diehards.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

There is zero compelling evidence that the text of the BoA comes via an actual translation from the papyri fragments that we have today, the Gospel topics essay even admits that point.  How can you say Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion?  

The problem for me is that regular people who don’t study these topics in any depth look at someone like Gee and assume that he’s speaking as an informed scholar with reputable scholarly evidence to back up his claims.  The reality is Gee could never publish his ideas on the BoA in a peer review Egyptological journal, and i venture he wouldn’t even attempt to do that.  Because he knows the scholarly evidence doesn’t support his faith based position.  

The problem for me is that even people who don’t study these topics in depth recognize the weakness of the apologetics being put forward. Granted, after the “two inks” and “missing scroll” fiascos John Gee doesn’t have a lot of credibility with me. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think it’s very slowly moving in this direction in spite of the strong opinions and push back by some diehards.  

Yeah, just not seeing it. 

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is zero compelling evidence that the text of the BoA comes via an actual translation from the papyri fragments that we have today, the Gospel topics essay even admits that point.  How can you say Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion?

There's two issues. One is the text, which can be defended as actual types of texts/legends from various periods. That is, how authentically ancient is it? (Recognizing again the looseness of translation and recognizing that ancient covers a lot of ground from early Iron Age though the Roman period) The second is the use of the two vignettes and hypocephalus as applied to the text. The third is defending how it's not irrational to believe the papyri and text are related. Again it's that issue of rationality not evidence that would be compelling to a non-believer that tends to be at the heart of apologetics. It's in that context that having Egyptologists, particularly one from a top department, who continues to believe is significant to someone not able to understand all the nuances of argument.

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem for me is that regular people who don’t study these topics in any depth look at someone like Gee and assume that he’s speaking as an informed scholar with reputable scholarly evidence to back up his claims.  The reality is Gee could never publish his ideas on the BoA in a peer review Egyptological journal, and i venture he wouldn’t even attempt to do that.  Because he knows the scholarly evidence doesn’t support his faith based position.  

Again I don't think I'd call this merely faith based, depending upon what you mean by that. Certainly key evidence for those who think they know is private religious experience. But the view that private experience can't ground knowledge seems deeply problematic.

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is zero compelling evidence that the text of the BoA comes via an actual translation from the papyri fragments that we have today, the Gospel topics essay even admits that point.  How can you say Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion?  

Gee's fairly forthright on this topic too. He notes Smith clearly believes he was translating the Book of Abraham from the papyri and that since he (Gee) has a testimony of Smith as a prophet it follows rationally that Joseph was correct. (I can give you the full quote if you wish) I'm not sure that's faith although it is interesting Gee doesn't claim a revelation on behalf of the Book of Abraham. Quite the contrary. (Admittedly I've not had a particular religious experience tied to it either) Now it may be wrong - there are other ways to draw inferences from that data. But to say there is "zero compelling evidence" again must be indexed to who we are speaking of and what other evidence they hold.

As for "Egyptologists from respected programs support this assertion" both Gee and Smoot come from respected programs. Gee's PhD from Yale is nothing to sneeze at. While University of Toronto isn't as prestigious as Yale, it's not exactly insignificant. It's ranked 21st in the world for archaeology and is extremely well regarded even if not one of the top schools. Again one can disagree with them but I'm not exactly sure how you can simply dismiss those achievements. (Smoot is of course still in school)

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think it’s very slowly moving in this direction in spite of the strong opinions and push back by some diehards.  

I think some are trying to move that direction. I'm really skeptical it's working. If anything I think things continue to go the other way. I also think that the fact most people who lose faith in historicity end up leaving the Church is an indication of why it's dangerous to embrace that position too much. (All apologies to those who maintain faith in the religious claims of the Church while disregarding historicity) I know some, like ChurchIsTrue, thinks as an apologetic endeavor pushing an "utility" view of scripture will stop faith crises. I remain pretty skeptical that would work myself. However I certainly don't begrudge them for trying. I suspect overall it'll drive more out of Church than it will rescue. But if it works for them more power to them. I suspect most of those in the crisis place will either have a religious experience confirming their testimony or else will fall away. As I've said in a few threads, to me the value of FAIR apologetics is for those not yet in a faith crisis.

Edited August 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course not. You’re invested in the historicity of LDS scripture. Such a move would be fascinating to someone not thus invested, like me. 

Excluding you as a subject of this discussion, I’ve no doubt every detractor and antagonist against the Church would love to see it eviscerate it’s fundamental truth claims in this manner and make it hardly distinguishable from any garden-variety sect in Christendom. As has been compellingly argued here, it ain’t gonna happen. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Excluding you as a subject of this discussion, I’ve no doubt every detractor and antagonist against the Church would love to see it eviscerate it’s fundamental truth claims in this manner and make hardly distinguishable from any garden-variety sect in Christendom. As has been compellingly argued here, it ain’t gonna happen. 

I know a lot of believing members who would be thrilled if the church no longer insisted on historicity. Detractors and antagonists don’t enter the equation, if the church ever goes this way. 

But I agree it’s highly unlikely. 

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know a lot of believing members who would be thrilled if the church no longer insisted on historicity. Detractors and antagonists don’t enter the equation, if the church ever goes this way. 

But I agree it’s highly unlikely. 

Detractors and antagonists would be very much a part of the equation if they drive the self-evisceration of the Church, which is what such a thing as this would amount to. I further believe Christ Himself would reject the Church if such a thing did occur, as other such apostasy and heresy has been rejected in ages past  

But this is all a mental exercise anyway, since, as you rightly acknowledge, it won’t happen. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Detractors and antagonists would be very much a part of the equation if they drive the self-evisceration of the Church, which is what such a thing as this would amount to. I further believe Christ Himself would reject the Church if it did, as other such apostasy and heresy has been rejected in ages past  

But this is all a mental exercise anyway, since, as you rightly acknowledge, it won’t happen. 

Do you think the church would make such a decision based on what detractors and antagonists say? I don’t. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Do you think the church would make such a decision based on what detractors and antagonists say? I don’t. 

In theory, the leaders themselves could fall into apostasy, causing the keys and authority to be taken from them, the very thing that happened following the deaths of Christ’s original apostles. 

But no, I don’t believe that will happen. I’m confident it won’t, as John the Baptist told Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the priesthood he was restoring would never again be taken from the earth. 

I do believe the detractors can and will deceive, confuse and dishearten some of the members of the Church. We’re seeing that very thing happen now, in fact. How widespread that will ultimately be remains to be seen. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Most apologetics I’ve seen try to prove textually or archaeologically that LDS scripture is grounded in historicity. If historicity doesn’t matter, then such activity is pointless in proving the value of the gospel. 

Whatever, indeed. 

"Apologetics" is not a synonym for "historicity "

To even establish your point that historicity is irrelevant you would have to use apologetics

I don't suggest you go into analytical philosophy.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

"Apologetics" is not a synonym for "historicity "

To even establish your point that historicity is irrelevant you would have to use apologetics

I don't suggest you go into analytical philosophy.

So, you do think that historicity is relevant to the spiritual value of the gospel? 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ll add my two cents on this part.  My problem with Gee is he’s an Egyptologist and his opinions on this topic carry more weight because of his educational background.  

If he were to make it clear that his opinions on the BoA are faith based not scholarly opinions based on his expertise in Egyptology, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with what he’s doing.  

Admittedly I didn’t attend FAIR so I’m speaking more generally to what was reported and what I’ve heard from Gee in the past.  

You are being very unfair to Gee.  Like me, he supports his position on the BofA strictly on a scholarly basis.  He even made clear during Q&A that, even though he has a spiritual testimony of the BofM, he does not have a spiritual testimony of the BofA.  Just the opposite of your apparent belief about him.  He argues that the BofA is not a conversion mechanism of the Church, and that a spiritual testimony of it is not necessary.

He rejects the argument that the intro to the PGP indicates in any way that the Church has changed its position on the BofA, and I agree.  He does say that the new intro simply broadens the purview to include both theories of translation.  Yet he also points out that the intro is not Scripture, and that the best explanation is the translation was made from an actual papyrus.  Again, I agree.

The burden of his paper was that we should not sell our birthright for a mess of plaudits.  Historical authenticity is not a minor matter, he said, asking whether we can bracket authenticity.  Is a neutral stance possible -- for the sake of dialogue.

Gee recalled that Nibley had pointed out two dangers:

1. Those who think they know enough to disprove the Scriptures, and

2.  Those who think they know enough to prove the Scriptures.

It is clearly much easier to disprove than to prove the authenticity of a document.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know a lot of believing members who would be thrilled if the church no longer insisted on historicity. Detractors and antagonists don’t enter the equation, if the church ever goes this way. .........................

 

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Detractors and antagonists would be very much a part of the equation if they drive the self-evisceration of the Church, which is what such a thing as this would amount to. I further believe Christ Himself would reject the Church if it did, as other such apostasy and heresy has been rejected in ages past  

......................................

We have already seen what such equivocation means in the Community of Christ (former RLDS Church), as it has happened also to many mainstream Protestant Churches.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

............................... Will it be convincing to an unbeliever? .................

An unbeliever who is not acquainted with standard Egyptology will certainly automatically reject anything Gee says, but he should not have much trouble with actual scholars who come from a non-Mormon background.  They can at least weigh what he says in light of their actual knowledge.  Facts do matter.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Detractors and antagonists would be very much a part of the equation if they drive the self-evisceration of the Church, which is what such a thing as this would amount to. I further believe Christ Himself would reject the Church if such a thing did occur, as other such apostasy and heresy has been rejected in ages past  

But this is all a mental exercise anyway, since, as you rightly acknowledge, it won’t happen. 

I suggest you ask yourself if the Copernican Revolution "eviscerated" Catholicism.

You don't need to believe in a flat Earth to be a Christian even if the Bible says it.

I predict that within a hundred years both issues will be equivalently irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

We have already seen what such equivocation means in the Community of Christ (former RLDS Church), as it has happened also to many mainstream Protestant Churches.

I think the problem lies more in the age in which we live and which people still think that religion teaches erroneous science.

It is not as if we have not lost members and the others have.

Are we really doing better than the Community of Christ is?

Aren't there other variables other than historicity in all the changes they have made?

It's not a rhetorical question I honestly don't know the answer.

And of course I don't think that we are Protestant at all, and have many other unique doctrines like Eternal families etc

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by mfbukowski