Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s faith based because there isn’t credible scholarly evidence to make it anything else.  

I think this is the false dichotomy I was getting at. You're presenting things as if there's only two choices: peer reviewed scholarship and faith. That just not believable.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The BOM could be perfectly historically accurate in every respect and still not be the word of God.

The BOM could also be the word of God and not be historically accurate, just as Bible science is not scientifically correct and the Bible is still the Word of God

Facts and spiritual significance are independent variables

That we can distinguish them doesn't make them independent variables. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is the false dichotomy I was getting at. You're presenting things as if there's only two choices: peer reviewed scholarship and faith. That just not believable.

Aren’t you saying personal faith beliefs like the faith that Joseph is a prophet belongs alongside scholarly evidence?  That’s what it sounded like to me, but if not, please clarify.  

I belief faith has a very important place in the lives of people, but I don’t believe it constitutes evidence that can be evaluated in a scholarly way.  

[Ryan Dahle]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What you [clarkgoble] describe for Gee’s belief in Joseph is exactly a faith based belief.  Also, the credentials of Gee and Smoot are  precisely why their statements about the BoA are problematic, because uninformed members assume their opinions about this topic carry some epyptological scholarly support, when in reality they don’t.  

I think you misunderstood the point. Gee doesn't necessarily need to find scholarly validation in the BofA because he already has a general testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that his revelations were from God. This actually allows Gee's scholarly opinions of the BofA to be far less biased than someone who would feel threatened by the evidence either way. If Gee, who doesn't need the BofA to prop up his testimony, finds that it indeed contains authentically ancient material, then Gee's views should definitely be held as significant for anyone concerned about the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's translation of the BofA. Even if Gee did feel he needed scholarly support for the BofA to maintain his faith in the Restoration, it still wouldn't invalidate his scholarly opinion on such matters, no more than Robert Ritner's apparent bias against the LDS beliefs regarding the BofA should inherently invalidate his opinions.

For Ritner's bias and lack of dispassionate scholarly objectivity, see  https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00018-5176ad3a17bd418Morris.pdf

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No offense to you [Robert F. Smith] or Gee personally, but I don’t see how you can say that his position is based on scholarly evidence.  The evidence is all apologetic speculations, none of it would make a peer reviewed publication.

Seriously? This fallback argument again? Nothing is scholarly evidence until it has passed "peer review," eh? All non-peer reviewed publications are mere speculation by default, right? Does this include Ritner's response to the BofA essay? Notice that although a lot of his publications have made it through peer review in well-respected journals and publishing outlets, this response apparently did not (second to top):

https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/individual-scholarship/individual-scholarship-robert-ritner

Your default reasoning would indicate that this is because no respectable scholar would support Ritner's clearly biased anti-Mormon article. After all, he does seem to be in league with the anti-Mormon community. Just look at the top link on his list of publications. The overwhelmingly positive "public response" comes solely from the exmormon reddit forum--not exactly the most biased-free group when it comes to evaluating LDS truth claims. Moreover, I'm sure if Ritner tried to pass his critique of the Church's BofA essay through the old FARMS Review that it would have been taken to task on a number of points. Ritner is obviously a good Egyptologist, but there are many aspects of this controversy that he is not well-equipped to responsibly deal with, and quite frankly it shows, even to a non-expert like me. Thus Ritner's non-peer reviewed opinion has clearly been compromised and should be seen as pure "anti-Mormon speculation," right? He's just an apologist for anti-Mormons, right?

Not at all. I think that, despite Ritner's clear bias, his scholarly opinion is valuable and should not be automatically discounted by anyone interested in this controversy. My position is that both Gee and Ritner are legitimate scholars and both of their views concerning the Book of Abraham need to be respected and evaluated for accuracy/validity, even when their views aren't contained in peer-reviewed publications. I'm sure sorting all this out would be a whole lot easier if we could just poison the well against those whose positions we are inclined to disregard (as you seem to want to do LDS scholars like Gee and Smoot, etc.), but bias cuts both ways, especially when it comes to evaluating the authenticity of religiously significant documents like the BofA or BofM.

You can't just sweep someone's legitimate academic credentials under the rug, no matter what their biases may be. To do so, would itself  be a mark of unreasonable and unjustified bias. I, for one, am very glad that Gee lets the LDS community know what he, as a legitimate and respected Egyptologist, thinks about the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. And in many cases, I think he and other LDS scholars who have addressed this topic have presented very good evidence for the BofA's authenticity/historicity.

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

That we can distinguish them doesn't make them independent variables. 

Of course they are.

Then what would?

Are "variables" cosmic invisible entities floating in space, or are they logical distinctions?

They are variables if someone thinks they are.

They are logical distinctions.

Edited August 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you misunderstood the point. Gee doesn't necessarily need to find scholarly validation in the BofA because he already has a general testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that his revelations were from God. This actually allows Gee's scholarly opinions of the BofA to be far less biased than someone who would feel threatened by the evidence either way. If Gee, who doesn't need the BofA to prop up his testimony, finds that it indeed contains authentically ancient material, then Gee's views should definitely be held as significant for anyone concerned about the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's translation of the BofA. Even if Gee did feel he needed scholarly support for the BofA to maintain his faith in the Restoration, it still wouldn't invalidate his scholarly opinion on such matters, no more than Robert Ritner's apparent bias against the LDS beliefs regarding the BofA should inherently invalidate his opinions.

For Ritner's bias and lack of dispassionate scholarly objectivity, see  https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00018-5176ad3a17bd418Morris.pdf

Seriously? This fallback argument again? Nothing is scholarly evidence until it has passed "peer review," eh? All non-peer reviewed publications are mere speculation by default, right? Does this include Ritner's response to the BofA essay? Notice that although a lot of his publications have made it through peer review in well-respected journals and publishing outlets, this response apparently did not (second to top):

https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/individual-scholarship/individual-scholarship-robert-ritner

Your default reasoning would indicate that this is because no respectable scholar would support Ritner's clearly biased anti-Mormon article. After all, he does seem to be in league with the anti-Mormon community. Just look at the top link on his list of publications. The overwhelmingly positive "public response" comes solely from the exmormon reddit forum--not exactly the most biased-free group when it comes to evaluating LDS truth claims. Moreover, I'm sure if Ritner tried to pass his critique of the Church's BofA essay through the old FARMS Review that it would have been taken to task on a number of points. Ritner is obviously a good Egyptologist, but there are many aspects of this controversy that he is not well-equipped to responsibly deal with, and quite frankly it shows, even to a non-expert like me. Thus Ritner's non-peer reviewed opinion has clearly been compromised and should be seen as pure "anti-Mormon speculation," right? He's just an apologist for anti-Mormons, right?

Not at all. I think that, despite Ritner's clear bias, his scholarly opinion is valuable and should not be automatically discounted by anyone interested in this controversy. My position is that both Gee and Ritner are legitimate scholars and both of their views concerning the Book of Abraham need to be respected and evaluated for accuracy/validity, even when their views aren't contained in peer-reviewed publications. I'm sure sorting all this out would be a whole lot easier if we could just poison the well against those whose positions we are inclined to disregard (as you seem to want to do LDS scholars like Gee and Smoot, etc.), but bias cuts both ways, especially when it comes to evaluating the authenticity of religiously significant documents like the BofA or BofM.

You can't just sweep someone's legitimate academic credentials under the rug, no matter what their biases may be. To do so, would itself  be a mark of unreasonable and unjustified bias. I, for one, am very glad that Gee lets the LDS community know what he, as a legitimate and respected Egyptologist, thinks about the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. And in many cases, I think he and other LDS scholars who have addressed this topic have presented very good evidence for the BofA's authenticity/historicity.

You’re seriously arguing that Ritner is “in league with the anti-Mormon community” and biased against the church? I guess when you can’t rebut his position, ad hominem is what you have left. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You’re seriously arguing that Ritner is “in league with the anti-Mormon community” and biased against the church? I guess when you can’t rebut his position, ad hominem is what you have left. 

You misread my post. Read it again. 

I was presenting this line of reasoning as an extension of hope_for_things unreasonable rationale which nullify's scholarly views based upon their religious position/affiliation. Ultimately, I showed how this type of thinking is counter-productive to the debate.

Notice, I started this paragraph by saying to hope_for_things, "Your default reasoning would indicate ..." 

The whole paragraph was sort of tongue-in-cheek.

However, I do find it interesting that Ritner linked to exmormon reddit right on his profile web page at University of Chicago. I don't think it compromises his views or anything, though.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You misread my post. Read it again. 

I see. Despite his obvious anti-Mormonism, his scholarship should be respected. I guess this is your attempt at leveling the playing field for Gee’s craptacular defenses of the Book of Abraham. 

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I see. Despite his obvious anti-Mormonism, his scholarship should be respected. I guess this is your attempt at leveling the playing field for Gee’s craptacular defenses of the Book of Abraham.

I would level the playing field for any legitimate scholar involved in such religiously charged debates, whether I found his or her arguments to be valid or not. I don't agree with everything that Gee says, but many of his arguments rise well above "craptacular." Many of them of very good.

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In other words, Gee is not entitled to his POV since it endangers or disrespects yours.  In the free marketplace of ideas, there will naturally be clashes.  What made you think otherwise?  His expression of his views does in no way threaten your expression.  It merely enriches the discussion.  That is how ideas are expressed and evaluated.  You need to read and accept John Stuart Mill "On Liberty," online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901 .

Just as I thought when I said to you "I missed that. Are you sure that he said that?  Or did you "vaguely" suppose it?  In any case, LDS leaders did not write the Gospel Topics Essays.  They had it done by scholars."  You clearly misunderstood Gee.

How about a definition?  According to James 1:5, God is a liberal, but what does that mean?

As for "progressives," what about Jamie Ehrlich, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes for progressive 'sub-caucus',” CNN, July 16, 2018, online at https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/ocasio-cortez-advocates-for-progressive-sub-caucus/index.html .   Does this help us understand what a "progressive" might be?

And as for "Neo," wasn't that a primary character in The Matrix?
 

I'm not hearing a question there. If you want to rephrase, go ahead.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'm not hearing a question there. If you want to rephrase, go ahead.

Hint:  The questions had question marks following.  One naturally assumes that a real discussion requires sincerity on both sides.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You’re right. I’m done. 

Promise?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

That we can distinguish them doesn't make them independent variables. 

Scott and Calm gave you rep points for this?

I will take an explanation from any one of the three, thank you very much.

I am rather surprised at least that you and Calm see the spiritual value of the BOM tied to its history while I presume NOT believing in a 6 day biblical creation, presumably

So the Bible gets away with bad science "facts" but the BOM must be judged by it's scientific "facts"?

The bible somehow is spiritually correct because it is old and historical now?  So historicity is the mark of scripture?

So I guess then all conference talks are not inspired nor do they carry the weight of scripture?

How old do they have to be?  Is the D&C scripture while not being old?

Where the heck are you guys coming from??

Scott I understand is pretty much a literalist- ok- and I will probably never understand him.   But you and Calm?

I am stymied.

So no evolution, world wide flood, 6 day creation and all that is true making the bible true?

What am I missing here?

Is it the Taves thing at the bottom line?  

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hint:  The questions had question marks following.  One naturally assumes that a real discussion requires sincerity on both sides.

Your post was full of questions- I am not getting it either.

[clarkgoble]

On 8/4/2018 at 8:08 PM, 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.  

I don't think they're absent. I've known people with first hand experience. 

That said I do think there is something to Mauss' idea although I think the ease of movement and virtual communities has shifted everything up. Isolation enabled communities to function in a fashion in the past that just isn't true now and isn't apt to be true again. That's why I keep saying the internet made a huge difference to religious belief and practice just not the way most see it. (As making criticism easily available)

On 8/4/2018 at 8:47 PM, 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. 

Some doctrines have become more solid while others get discarded. What I'm seeing is close readings of texts and careful appreciation for the reasons of belief change belief. Thus a lot of the questionable baggage that developed between 1920 and 2000 often tied to conservative Protestant apologetics in opposition to modernism are slowly getting discarded. Much like many doctrines of the early Utah period (loosely 1850-1900) were discarded. Yet core doctrines seem to be emphasized more than ever and historicity seems one of those. People may disagree with that, but it seems hard to argue otherwise.

The Book of Abraham is a bit of an unique text by its very nature. So there are lots of ways to figure it out. However the historical existence of key figures is I think necessitated by people claiming to meet them. Dismiss historicity and what do you do with Moroni, Adam, or other figures people claim to have met? And if you dismiss that as well, what's left of the religion? It's Fowler's Stages of Faith nonsense again. After all as any atheist will tell you - you don't need to be religious to be ethical. 

More interesting to me is what's coming with change. I think we're going to see pretty rapid change in the Church unlike anything since the transitionary period in the early 20th century. Will Nelson become an other Heber J. Grant? Hard to say. However it seems clear that Nelson and Oaks have a lot of things planned that will continue even after Neslon's death.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am rather surprised at least that you and Calm see the spiritual value of the BOM tied to its history while I presume NOT believing in a 6 day biblical creation, presumably

So the Bible gets away with bad science "facts" but the BOM must be judged by it's scientific "facts"?

The bible somehow is spiritually correct because it is old and historical now?  So historicity is the mark of scripture?

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. One example of a major Book of Mormon doctrine is the gathering of the Jews out of the Americans, the New Jerusalem, and the gathering to the old Jerusalem. By your own admission this is a doctrine your system can't make heads nor tails out of yet historicity grounds. If there are no Lamanites to gather, this part of the religion seems nonsensical. Yet it also seems pretty important in the text (as well as to Joseph Smith and the early Mormons).

One can believe in historicity while simultaneously rejecting fundamentalist conceptions of young earth creationism. There's no essential tie between them. Not quite sure why you're raising this.

I don't think the Bible should get away with bad claims anymore than the Book of Mormon does. So again I'm sensing a false dichotomy at work. And of course being old isn't sufficient. Something can be necessary without being sufficient. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess then all conference talks are not inspired nor do they carry the weight of scripture?

How old do they have to be?  Is the D&C scripture while not being old?

Not sure how you went from historicity to old. Think you're missing something here. Who injected age into the debate?

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course they are.

Then what would?

Are "variables" cosmic invisible entities floating in space, or are they logical distinctions?

They are variables if someone thinks they are.

They are logical distinctions.

Independent variables are literally that - independent. It means affecting one doesn't affect the other. Dependent variables can still be distinguished (your claim was they couldn't) yet affecting one may affect the other. To say that to distinguish something requires it being independent is non-sensical. Most things we distinguish are dependent upon other things we distinguish from them. The obvious example is distance and duration and quantum mechanics. We can easily distinguish them but they're not independent. But dependent variables are often a problem in science where something we think is independent isn't due to some unknown feedback loop. So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. We can distinguish facts from spiritual significance, but that doesn't make them independent. You'd need a further argument to say they're actually independent.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You’re seriously arguing that Ritner is “in league with the anti-Mormon community” and biased against the church? I guess when you can’t rebut his position, ad hominem is what you have left. 

Ritner clearly has a chip on his shoulder yet I think his arguments have to be dealt with. I'm with Nibley and think we should be somewhat thankful for anti-Mormons or we'd never take our own scriptures seriously.

On 8/4/2018 at 10:02 PM, jkwilliams said:

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. 

I'm not sure the missing scroll is dead, but John definitely made some bad arguments with claims he should have checked - such as rubrics on the extant papyri. I had assumed he'd seen the originals but I guess he was going by the Improvement Era like the rest of us. Now that the Joseph Smith Papers has published so much Egyptian stuff it's a lot easier to men the arguments. 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Aren’t you saying personal faith beliefs like the faith that Joseph is a prophet belongs alongside scholarly evidence?  That’s what it sounded like to me, but if not, please clarify.  

No. I'm saying those aren't the only two choices. You're declaring everything that isn't scholarly evidence just personal faith beliefs. That seems demonstrably false.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I belief faith has a very important place in the lives of people, but I don’t believe it constitutes evidence that can be evaluated in a scholarly way.  

I agree. But again I don't think it a choice purely of faith or scholarship. That just seems ridiculous honestly. If I have a private experience other share, that's going to affect the types of arguments I will make in that community. However I'll not be able to make those same arguments in a scholarly community. So say if I saw Donald Trump making a quid pro quo business deal with some FSB agent, that's going to affect my conclusions and what I'll argue. Doesn't mean I can make it as an argument in some Political Science paper. 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your post was full of questions- I am not getting it either.

It could be that he just didn't have any answers . . .

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. One example of a major Book of Mormon doctrine is the gathering of the Jews out of the Americans, the New Jerusalem, and the gathering to the old Jerusalem. By your own admission this is a doctrine your system can't make heads nor tails out of yet historicity grounds. If there are no Lamanites to gather, this part of the religion seems nonsensical. Yet it also seems pretty important in the text (as well as to Joseph Smith and the early Mormons).

One can believe in historicity while simultaneously rejecting fundamentalist conceptions of young earth creationism. There's no essential tie between them. Not quite sure why you're raising this.

I don't think the Bible should get away with bad claims anymore than the Book of Mormon does. So again I'm sensing a false dichotomy at work. And of course being old isn't sufficient. Something can be necessary without being sufficient. 

Not sure how you went from historicity to old. Think you're missing something here. Who injected age into the debate?

Independent variables are literally that - independent. It means affecting one doesn't affect the other. Dependent variables can still be distinguished (your claim was they couldn't) yet affecting one may affect the other. To say that to distinguish something requires it being independent is non-sensical. Most things we distinguish are dependent upon other things we distinguish from them. The obvious example is distance and duration and quantum mechanics. We can easily distinguish them but they're not independent. But dependent variables are often a problem in science where something we think is independent isn't due to some unknown feedback loop. So I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. We can distinguish facts from spiritual significance, but that doesn't make them independent. You'd need a further argument to say they're actually independent.

This. A lot of Mormon doctrine relies on such dependencies: if there were no Nephites, who was that guy who brought Joseph the plates? And who created the plates if Nephi et al. never existed? It's a category error to say that all a religion's claims are spiritual and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry. If it's all just some kind of irreducibly spiritual stuff, then belief is no less arbitrary a decision than that of the Evangelical in another thread claiming he just randomly decided to believe in the scriptures (at least a particular interpretation thereof). 

Quote

Ritner clearly has a chip on his shoulder yet I think his arguments have to be dealt with. I'm with Nibley and think we should be somewhat thankful for anti-Mormons or we'd never take our own scriptures seriously.

I think I'd have a chip on my shoulder if people were spreading rumors about my sexual orientation and saying I was kicked off someone's dissertation committee, but I don't consider Ritner an anti-Mormon at all. 

Quote

I'm not sure the missing scroll is dead, but John definitely made some bad arguments with claims he should have checked - such as rubrics on the extant papyri. I had assumed he'd seen the originals but I guess he was going by the Improvement Era like the rest of us. Now that the Joseph Smith Papers has published so much Egyptian stuff it's a lot easier to men the arguments. 

I would hope the argument that there are 41 feet of missing scroll is dead. The two inks business speaks for itself.

[Ryan Dahle]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would hope the argument that there are 41 feet of missing scroll is dead.

Gee disagreed with Cook and Smith's calculations and showed how they didn't accurately predict the length of a real scroll which Gee measured in Toronto. In contrast, Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula, which Gee relied upon in his calculations, predicted results that were much closer to the scroll's actual length.  

See https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2012/book-of-abraham-i-presume#en7

However, Gee said that in the process of checking Cook and Smith's calculations, he discovered that the assumptions that both he and Cook and Smith were working with weren't necessarily reliable: 

Quote

One of the things I’ve learned with this experience is that I’ve identified a number of fallacious assumptions made by both formulas that undermine my confidence in any of them. The last three errors that I identified are irreparable. The best the formulas can therefore do is give a ballpark estimate and a ballpark estimate is a useful thing to know.

So, even though Gee, because of his trust in eyewitness statements, seems to prefer the idea that the BofA was on another scroll, his calculations still suggest that the text could have been on the Hor scroll, and that this scroll could easily have been long enough to fit the BofA. I don't know of anyone else who has checked up on either of these formulas, but it seems that Gee had the last word in this debate. So the idea of a long Hor scroll still seems to be very much alive, and those who feel the relationship between the facsimiles and the BofA require them to be from the same scroll have room to rationally entertain that theory. As Gee said, a "ballpark estimate is a useful thing to know."

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Gee disagreed with Cook and Smith's calculations and showed how they didn't accurately predict the length of a real scroll which Gee measured in Toronto. In contrast, Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula, which Gee relied upon in his calculations, predicted results that were much closer to the scroll's actual length.  

See https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2012/book-of-abraham-i-presume#en7

However, Gee said that in the process of checking Cook and Smith's calculations, he discovered that the assumptions that both he and Cook and Smith were working with weren't necessarily reliable: 

So, even though Gee, because of his trust in eyewitness statements, seems to prefer the idea that the BofA was on another scroll, his calculations still suggest that the text could have been on the Hor scroll, and that this scroll could easily have been long enough to fit the BofA. I don't know of anyone else who has checked up on either of these formulas, but it seems that Gee had the last word in this debate. So the idea of a long Hor scroll still seems to be very much alive, and those who feel the relationship between the facsimiles and the BofA require them to be from the same scroll have room to rationally entertain that theory. As Gee said, a "ballpark estimate is a useful thing to know."

Maybe you missed Chris and Andrew's response: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No. I'm saying those aren't the only two choices. You're declaring everything that isn't scholarly evidence just personal faith beliefs. That seems demonstrably false.

I agree. But again I don't think it a choice purely of faith or scholarship. That just seems ridiculous honestly. If I have a private experience other share, that's going to affect the types of arguments I will make in that community. However I'll not be able to make those same arguments in a scholarly community. So say if I saw Donald Trump making a quid pro quo business deal with some FSB agent, that's going to affect my conclusions and what I'll argue. Doesn't mean I can make it as an argument in some Political Science paper. 

While I agree that it would be difficult for someone who has a faith belief to be completely objective and not let that influence their scholarship, I think that is exactly what is required of someone like Gee.  You mentioned earlier that a belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet makes it rational for Gee to assume that Joseph was correct when he claimed he was translating the papyri.  I think for responsible scholarship to happen a person like Gee knowing their personal bias towards their faith, must be even more rigorous with respect to any scholarship around this topic to make sure he isn't just confirming his bias.  Bringing in outside voices to corroborate his findings would be another important step.  

But the reality is that the work he's doing is not for a broad audience, he's not attempting to publish it anywhere that it could be scrutinized by other scholars in the field.  He's clearly engaging in apologetics only, and that is a very different type of material.  Yet because of his credentials his apologetics carries authority that it shouldn't otherwise carry.  

[churchistrue]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How about a definition? 

As a distinction from traditional FARMS style Mormon Apologetics, I don't care what you call it. It's very frustrating to explain because though I think everyone understands well what it means, everyone wants to argue over whether or not the label is accurate. Liberal as in Liberal Christian is a useful description but the word is too loaded from use in politics. Progressive is a common term but probably the least useful because it specifically has connotation to political issues like women's rights, racism, LGBT+ issues, etc. When that may be a part of "Neo Apologetics" it's not the main distinction. Neo Apologetics is a nice term, imho, because everyone knows what it is. But whenever the term comes up, most people want to be cute about it like you did, because they simply don't like the fact John Dehlin coined the term or whatever reason. 

No category defines a person exactly. Within categories there is variance. Across categories there is crossover. But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event
• understanding of priesthood authority, ordinances, and "only true and living" church that does not correlate to LDS Church and doctrine as God's one, exclusively True church

Edited August 6, 2018 by churchistrue

[Ryan Dahle]

28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe you missed Chris and Andrew's response: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf

I had missed that article, and I will gladly revise my opinion based upon it. I don't know enough to check the math, but unless Gee or someone else can point out significant errors in this rebuttal, I will accept this as the most current and likely the most accurate position on the length of the Hor scroll. Thanks for the update!

[Late note]: I don't necessarily see this article as being the last word, though. It would be interesting to hear why Gee felt the assumptions about measurements aren't reliable. Cook, who quotes Gee, writes: "We needn’t fear that there may be 'some errors in it or in the assumptions upon which it is based.' Fundamentally, a scroll’s length is simply the sum of its windings." Apparently Gee feels differently, and it would be good to know why. Perhaps Gee will tells us some day. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event

Just to note, most of those are accepted by traditional apologists too. There's quite a range of views and many accept an expansion conception. Heck, it was Blake Ostler who came up with the idea. Obviously #1 is a bridge too far for most apologists I think as well as the conception of prophets/revelation.

My own view is that the main distinction is between trying to reconcile the text to known historical facts and then reread the text accordingly versus a focus on meaning from the text independent of context. Ironically this often means neoapologists are more willing to read the text in traditional ways, from what I can see.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Ironically this often means neoapologists are more willing to read the text in traditional ways, from what I can see.

Exactly. There is a strange rigidity in starting assumptions that leads this group to not being able to accommodate new theories of interpretation. This inability to accommodate or adapt starting assumptions, even when evidence exists that would make such accommodation perfectly rational, forces them into false dichotomies.  

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Exactly. There is a strange rigidity in starting assumptions that leads this group to not being able to accommodate new theories of interpretation. This inability to accommodate or adapt starting assumptions, even when evidence exists that would make such accommodation perfectly rational, forces them into false dichotomies.  

I think neoapologists are less willing to read the text with a hermeneutics of suspicion. That is assume that the figures are real flawed ignorant human beings with their own motives in writing what they do. If it's fiction after all then the author is master in a strong way and reader response gets privileged. Not that all do that, although I do think they tend to read through the lens of literary criticism rather than through the lens of suspicion. Clearly I favor the latter though so perhaps I'm a bit biased.

Of course to be fair again not all put in the neo-apologetic camp think they are. Some, like Adam Miller, would object whether they are even doing apologetics period.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

While I agree that it would be difficult for someone who has a faith belief to be completely objective and not let that influence their scholarship, I think that is exactly what is required of someone like Gee.  You mentioned earlier that a belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet makes it rational for Gee to assume that Joseph was correct when he claimed he was translating the papyri.  I think for responsible scholarship to happen a person like Gee knowing their personal bias towards their faith, must be even more rigorous with respect to any scholarship around this topic to make sure he isn't just confirming his bias.  Bringing in outside voices to corroborate his findings would be another important step.  

But the reality is that the work he's doing is not for a broad audience, he's not attempting to publish it anywhere that it could be scrutinized by other scholars in the field.  He's clearly engaging in apologetics only, and that is a very different type of material.  Yet because of his credentials his apologetics carries authority that it shouldn't otherwise carry.  

I think you're conflating two issues. The first is how you'd like apologetics to be done. In that I think we actually agree more than it may appear at first glance. It's more your second paragraph that I disagree with. I just inherently think it significant that a topic doesn't bother someone informed. I don't think that an indication of being irrational or compartmentalizing. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble