mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Because you said one type of apologetics was not postmodern and the new type was. Keven is an example of an apologist in the old type of apologetics (FARMS). That's the only reason I brought him up. Ridiculous. He is not of the "old type" at all- I don't know where you get this He is not Cartesian at all- instructs on Kuhn heavily and espouses that the highest level of Cognitive Development is relativism. Does that sound like a 6 day creationist? I cannot believe you said that. Did you read my quote from Joe at all? Quote Again, reread my comments. It was one sentence I was objecting to. The idea that old apologetics were Cartesian and new apologetics were postmodern. With old apologetics being FARMS/Interpret and new apologetics being the so-called neo-apologist movement. No re-read MY comments. Joe makes the same distinction I do without naming names. Kevin is one of the least foundationalist guys out there Quote But that's not an issue of correspondence theory of truth. That's an issue of the exegesis of Genesis 1 & 2. One could easily hold to the correspondence theory and yet interpret Genesis 1 differently from this fundamentalist way. I'm really not following your logic here. You appear to be arguing that correspondence theory leads to religious fundamentalism but I don't see how that follows in the least. Heavens, most liberal Protestants in the early 20th century held to a correspondence theory of truth but didn't adopt fundamentalism. I explained it. Things as they are are knowable because words correspond to things as they are. That is the definition of the correspondence theory. The Bible is the Word of God and so describes things as they are INCLUDING God. Fundamentalism is NOT foundationalism. We are talking about foundationalism here- correspondence requires something to correspond to doesn't it?? Like maybe the foundation of things as they are? Why do you not see this? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/#DoubAbouCorrAcqu Quote More radical contemporary rejections of foundationalism may well involve dissatisfaction with the foundationalist’s implicit commitment to a strong realistic correspondence conception of truth as involving some relation to mind-independent facts. A discussion of problems with the correspondence conception and alternatives would take us far afield, however. (For more, see the entry on thecorrespondence theory of truth.) Quote Certainly I accept anti-foundationalism. I don't see any evidence of that but ok Quote However I don't see the problem with a Mormon being foundationalist - even if I don't know too many people who are. But I'm sure they're out there even though foundationalism isn't exactly a popular theory. Of course foundationalists can be Mormons and they have been because they inherited Protestant philosophy and haven't changed. 99% of the posters here are foundationalists. They are those who want "evidence" for the Book of Mormon. That is why the argument "You have no evidence for the BOA" are actually taken seriously hereabouts. It lacks a foundation and that troubles foundationalists. It might not be "real" whatever that means! It might not "correspond" to reality! Non-foundationalists look at that argument and say "So What?" That is the emotion behind the catalyst theory for example. Explain why it doesn't matter if there is no foundation. Quote As you know I tend to see Alma 32 more in terms of the traditional Hebrew notions of truth although it also lines up with pragmatic readings. D&C 93 is more difficult. I think it's obscure enough I wouldn't want to hinge an epistemology on it. I strongly suspect it's largely neoplatonic in outlook although it's hard to say how much of that is intended as content and how much is just the rhetoric used based upon Joseph's understanding. I just think D&C 93:30 can be read in so many ways I'd never want to hinge a doctrine on that particular verse. I disagree with your interpretation when you combine it with other scriptures I have in mind. Quote What, after all is the sphere? Is it earth? Is it a mind or something like Heidegger's there in being-there (Dasein)? Is it just a place like Derrida's khôra? Or is it just sphere in the sense of a sphere of creation? - i.e. a world Or is it more about the descent of the soul through various spheres to it's final place in the soul? Hard to tell based upon D&C 93. Yet the answer to that has serious implications for how one uses D&C 93. Yeah that's why I referenced President Kimball earlier in the thread. "Absolute Knowledge" - look it up. Link upthread somewhere And no I won't debate it here. I don't have the time, I am only answering now because I am feeling attacked on something that is so totally obvious to me that I cannot see why you don't. You cited Joe and I agreed with him and now you are trying to rebut me? What's that about? YOU picked the article which supports MY VIEW- it's not my fault. That is pretty much all the defending I feel I need to do.
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ridiculous. He is not of the "old type" at all- I don't know where you get this Could you clarify how you are using old and new? - because you've redefined it from how I was using it and how this thread was using it. I sense that's why I'm confused as to how you're using the Joe Spencer paper as well. Just to be clear, when the term neo-apologist developed it was usually opposed to FARMS and those who publish on FARMS or (now) The Interpreter. 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And no I won't debate it here. I don't have the time, I am only answering now because I am feeling attacked on something that is so totally obvious to me that I cannot see why you don't. You cited Joe and I agreed with him and now you are trying to rebut me? What's that about? YOU picked the article which supports MY VIEW- it's not my fault. I honestly am not sure what you're arguing anymore. I tried to be clear with what I agreed and disagreed upon. I'm not trying to attack you. Again the issue was just the distinction between apologetics and neo-apologetics and how postmodern they were. 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 99% of the posters here are foundationalists. They are those who want "evidence" for the Book of Mormon. That is why the argument "You have no evidence for the BOA" are actually taken seriously hereabouts. It lacks a foundation and that troubles foundationalists. It might not be "real" whatever that means! It might not "correspond" to reality! Non-foundationalists look at that argument and say "So What?" That is the emotion behind the catalyst theory for example. Explain why it doesn't matter if there is no foundation. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here. Both foundationalists and non-foundationalists can still agree evidence is important. It seems to me the distinction between the two isn't over evidence but what the nature of evidence is. But I'll drop it. I enjoy our discussions but for whatever reason this one wasn't too fruitful. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Could you clarify how you are using old and new? - because you've redefined it from how I was using it and how this thread was using it. I sense that's why I'm confused as to how you're using the Joe Spencer paper as well. Just to be clear, when the term neo-apologist developed it was usually opposed to FARMS and those who publish on FARMS or (now) The Interpreter. I honestly am not sure what you're arguing anymore. I tried to be clear with what I agreed and disagreed upon. I'm not trying to attack you. Again the issue was just the distinction between apologetics and neo-apologetics and how postmodern they were. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here. Both foundationalists and non-foundationalists can still agree evidence is important. It seems to me the distinction between the two isn't over evidence but what the nature of evidence is. But I'll drop it. I enjoy our discussions but for whatever reason this one wasn't too fruitful. Read the article. You quoted it to refute my position. I actually agree with it, that is what I've been saying all along essentially He's the one who said there's a trend toward anti foundationalism in post-modernism and in Mormonism. I agree with him. I don't understand your objections at all. I quoted the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy for Pete sakes, backing the dependence on foundationalism that the correspondence theory has. Edited August 7, 2018 by mfbukowski
Robert F. Smith Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: But does he get input from non-Mormon peers on his BoA research, and would his arguments stand up to critical scrutiny from non-Mormon scholars? A great many non-Mormon Egyptologists have written on specific parts of the BofA and of associated documents and illustrations. Perhaps you haven't availed yourself of the full panoply of that material, and therefore don't understand what the issues are. That is crucial. 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: ........................... As a concerned and somewhat well informed Mormon, but not a scholar myself, I'm critical of certain apologetic arguments that aren't intellectually rigorous. It seems reasonable to warn against confirmation bias in these cases, as there is a track record for this kind of thinking within very insular groups that spend inordinate amounts of time debating issues inside a bubble that has no relevance or connection to the broader scholarly world. This is where Mormon apologetics especially with the old guard often falters from my vantage point. Hugh Nibley was well published in non-Mormon peer reviewed journals, and even in the Encyclopedia Judaica published by Macmillan. Was that an example of the faltering "old guard," in your opinion? A number of non-Mormon scholars have taken an interest in aspects of Mormonism, and have written a great deal about it. Is that all just nonsense to you? Do you even understand what I am saying here? Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be completely unfamiliar with Mormon and non-Mormon scholarship on Mormonism. 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I don't buy the criticisms by some apologists that the non-Mormons don't take their works seriously, and that this is the fault of the non-Mormons. No, its the fault of crappy apologetic arguments. Make reasonable arguments and write persuasively and you'll get the attention of non-Mormons who are also interested in Mormon studies. I have not made that argument in this thread, nor any of its corrollaries, so am not sure why you even bring that up. Many of the best Mormon scholarship these days is published in top of the line publishing houses, such as Oxford Univ Press. This has been the case for years. What is amazing is that you seem completely unfamiliar with such scholarship. Why? 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: This is the great realization of some leaders at the Maxwell Institute in recent years, but unfortunately, many others are still stuck in the past trying to defend their turf. I always suggest on this board that we read the scholarly material produced by people at the Maxwell Institute, such as John Gee, Brian Hauglid, Joe Spencer, et al. If, for some reason, you find that material wanting in quality, the answer is to provide specific, substantive criticism, rather than casting wild and generic aspersions against the hated category of "apologetics." Does that make sense?
churchistrue Posted August 7, 2018 Author Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have not heard the term "Neo Apologetic" before your mention of it in this thread, and don't know how Dehlin may have used it. I don't dislike the term, and have no real concept of it -- have no idea what it means. You seem to suggest that it is tantamount to liberal or progressive apologetics, but I am not clear on what those terms mean either. The real problem is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are supposed to be opposites, but cannot be shown to comport with any sort of reality. That is, they are incoherent, emotional terms which do not describe actual content or practice. If you could provide an example of each, that might be helpful. My notion of how scholarship proceeds is based on a rigorous assemblage of facts and logic. It must always be conditioned by the opinions of other scholars, and must always be backed by good documentation. My average 3.9 gpa at UCLA should be seen in that context. Nearly all of these points are faith-based instead of fact-based, accepting apriori opinions as normative -- even before a rigorous evaluation has been made. Where is the merit-based professional evaluation in all that? No need for scholarly evaluation of an assertion. One's emotional mood is adequate to determine what is true and what is anachronistic. That has the advantage of shutting down scholarly debate, and all the difficulties that entails. One need only adopt a "feel good" approach, which is what many religious denominations exist for -- to satisfy some particular need. Indeed, that is the source of rampant denominationalism. Instead of submitting to scholarly reality, everybody must have his own way. Which is fine for an Einstein, but most of the rest of us cannot stand alone against the wind. We depend on the wider community of scholarship -- non-Mormon scholarship, with its "Gentile respectability" (Nibley). Sorry for the earlier, flippant response. When you said you didn't know what I meant by Liberal-Prog-Neo Apologetics and likely I didn't either, I didn't know you were unaware of the term, I was assuming you were being snarky about the legitimacy of such a viewpoint. I have a similar approach to scholarship and facts and logic. My GPA was 3.6 at BYU, so not as good as you. But I was a little immature the year before my mission and had to work hard to bring it up to that. I totally disagree with the assertion of your last paragraph. I don't think any of these are really faith based viewpoints. BOM historicity is a scientific-historical proposition. Evolution, Documentary Hypothesis, and OT literalism is a scientific-historical proposition. The faith proposition here is whether God is in the BOM and the Bible despite it not being historical. That's a faith proposition. I have come to my overall perspective described by those bullet points, through a long process where one by one, I looked at specific data points just like you have, looked at the scholarship and performed logic and fact based analysis on them. This led over many years to a position of rejecting BOM historicity, rejecting Book of Abraham historicity, understanding of the First Vision as something different than the 1838 account, that God likely did not send an angel with drawn sword to command Joseph to do polygamy, etc. But back to faith. It did not change the positive lived experience I had. The feelings with the Holy Ghost. My belief and faith that God was working through Joseph Smith and current LDS prophets and leaders. That the Book of Mormon and the Bible is the inspired Word of God. So, it took me to a new non-literal paradigm, which I am defining as Neo Apologetics here. Edited August 7, 2018 by churchistrue
hope_for_things Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 14 hours ago, hope_for_things said: But does he get input from non-Mormon peers on his BoA research, and would his arguments stand up to critical scrutiny from non-Mormon scholars? A great many non-Mormon Egyptologists have written on specific parts of the BofA and of associated documents and illustrations. Perhaps you haven't availed yourself of the full panoply of that material, and therefore don't understand what the issues are. That is crucial. If you are saying there are non-Mormon Egyptologists that have written things that would authenticate any of the text of the BoA as a translation of the papyrus or that the papyrus had anything to do with Abraham, then you are correct, I'm only familiar with those non-Mormon Egyptologists that have confirmed that there is no connection. I will admit that this is not one of those Mormon studies topics that I find of great interest. Largely because it was clear to me early on that there was nothing of substance to the apologetics here. Consequentially many moderate church apologists have created the catalyst theory which is officially sanctioned in the LDS church essay on the subject. 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hugh Nibley was well published in non-Mormon peer reviewed journals, and even in the Encyclopedia Judaica published by Macmillan. Was that an example of the faltering "old guard," in your opinion? A number of non-Mormon scholars have taken an interest in aspects of Mormonism, and have written a great deal about it. Is that all just nonsense to you? Do you even understand what I am saying here? Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to be completely unfamiliar with Mormon and non-Mormon scholarship on Mormonism. Honestly, I haven't read much of Nibley, this is largely a generational thing and that I wasn't exposed to Mormon studies until recently (about 5 years ago). I've been reading a lot of material since then, but haven't gone back to read Nibley stuff that I missed. I think Mormon studies has come a long way since he wrote though. I'm familiar with some non-Mormons who take interest in Mormonism, people like Jan Shipps, or Ann Taves, or John Turner. I'm reading On Zion's Mount by Jared Farmer right now, and I've read other books and essays by non-Mormons and or former Mormons of interest. Are you attempting to dismiss my opinion because you've read more or have lived longer than I have? 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have not made that argument in this thread, nor any of its corrollaries, so am not sure why you even bring that up. Many of the best Mormon scholarship these days is published in top of the line publishing houses, such as Oxford Univ Press. This has been the case for years. What is amazing is that you seem completely unfamiliar with such scholarship. Why? I guess I have to defend my right to an opinion here again. Lets see, what books have I read published by Oxford: Religion of a Different Color, Foundational Texts of Mormonism, Mormons and the Bible, In Heaven as it is on Earth, Standing Apart. Those are all I've read so far, and I own some more I haven't read yet as well. I think those were all written by Mormons. I also have read books from many other University Presses. I think our biggest disagreement on things usually stems from the fact that I don't follow the conservative apologetics very closely and I generally don't find their arguments very compelling either. FAIR and Interpreter aren't on my regular to read list. 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I always suggest on this board that we read the scholarly material produced by people at the Maxwell Institute, such as John Gee, Brian Hauglid, Joe Spencer, et al. If, for some reason, you find that material wanting in quality, the answer is to provide specific, substantive criticism, rather than casting wild and generic aspersions against the hated category of "apologetics." Does that make sense? I agree, and I like much of what Brian Hauglid has written on this BoA topic, I think he's been pretty fair and about as honest as a person who works for the church can be on the subject. I wasn't aware that Gee's talk from FAIR is available for people to access yet, and I thought this thread was opened to make more general observations about apologetics, so I chimed in with my two cents.
Kevin Christensen Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) I wasn't impressed with Duffy on Post-Modernism and Mormon scholarship when it came out, and took note of Spencer's interesting reply at Square Two and saw Clark chiming in there as well. Duffy was everywhere for a while, publishing some very ambitious things in Sunstone and elsewhere. I wrote a long response to his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates essay in Sunstone a decade ago, but all they allowed from me was about two paragraphs in the letters column. That was my last publication at Sunstone. I thought it was interesting that the editors quoted a reader whose response to Duffy's essay was "If this is correct, what meaning does my life have?" And they seemed to think that this deeply troubled response amounted to a ringing endorsement of the validity and power Duffy's "sociology of knowledge" approach. My full response is finally coming out in a Festschrift coming through the Interpreter Foundation fairly soon. I finished years ago, but other contributors to the book have been delinquent until lately. Duffy starts with a reference to this essay by Massimo Introvigne which I still like. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=1 It seems to me that a common theme from Vogel to Duffy and beyond is annoyance with any approach that leaves any room for faith. They seem to want it all nailed down and put away once and for all, and seem certain that there must be something existentially amiss in any intellectual approach that allows the possibility that such things as God, angels, resurrection, and translation from real plates could possibly exist and, horror or horrors, leave the possibility that any religion, and especially not Mormons can have reason to be binding. They want to be absolutely certain, with final, irrevocable, once and for all judgement, that there is no "cause to believe" worth nurturing. My favorite definition of Post Modernism came through Alan Goff, when he commented that Post-modernism is what happens the critical eye of modernism turns on itself and becomes self-reflective. This creates a bit of instability and uncertainty. But it should, and, according to Jesus, is necessary to "see clearly," first removing the beams from one's own eye, and considering the effects of one's own ideological preconceptions and personal limitations and mistakes. It's also part of 12 step recovery, and the difference between Alma doing a life review and seeing the need to personally change, and Laman and Lemuel turning towards fear and resentment, taking everyone's inventory but their own so as to continue their self-justification. It's always valuable to pay attention to the stories and examples that anyone puts forward as exemplary, as a defining moment to generalize from, as when Trump makes his over-arching claims about the general character of immigrants, or the reliability of CNN, the future business prospects of the Washington Post and New York Times, or the validity of Mueller's ongoing investigation. It is very possible not only to disagree, but to actively test and dispute the validity of his generalizations, even when specific incidents can be cited. Just how representative are they? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 7, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You quoted it to refute my position. I actually agree with it, that is what I've been saying all along essentially He's the one who said there's a trend toward anti foundationalism in post-modernism and in Mormonism. I agree with him. I don't understand your objections at all. Again, my only issue was with old/new apologetics. I think you were taking me to be arguing something quite different. I'm still not at all clear what you mean by old and new apologetics, but it's clearly something different from how I stated it. 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: I wasn't impressed with Duffy on Post-Modernism and Mormon scholarship when it came out, and took note of Spencer's interesting reply at Square Two and saw Clark chiming in there as well. Yes, I thought Joe's response was great. But he also noticed something in typical Mormon scholarship as well. (He was focused more on "Mormon Studies" rather than apologetics but I think it still applied) His bit on truth and Englightenment I think came out of the discussions we were all having on LDS-Herm at the time. (He, Adam Miller, Alan Goff and others) That said I tend to disagree with his claim of "the postmodern embrace of uncompromised nihilism." Even though I'd tend to agree that is a big problem in the type of postmodernism popular in English departments and so forth in the 90's. That nihilism is largely why I stopped calling myself a postmodernism. (That and the Sokal Hoax -- the reality was there was a lot of "word mysticism" disconnected from phenomenological investigation in all the bad postmodernism of the time) While the formatting in my comment at SquareTwo made it hard to see when I was quoting, I still think the Derrida quote is relevant. Q: So you would not consider yourself an anti-historicist? JD: Not at all. I think that one cannot read without trying to reconstruct the historical context but history is not the last word, the final key, of reading. Without being anti-historicist, I am suspicious of the traditional concepts of history, the Hegelian and Marxist concepts. 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: My favorite definition of Post Modernism came through Alan Goff, when he commented that Post-modernism is what happens the critical eye of modernism turns on itself and becomes self-reflective. I can't seem to find the quote. I think it was from Jim Faulconer but could be wrong. It was something like "a postmodern is someone who knows we need to surpass and correct modernism but also knows we can't escape it." Getting back to the original topic, Joe Spencer once said something that stuck with me. But postmodernism is not a positive alternative to modernism; it is a critical position that, from within modernism, follows modernism's presuppositions out to their most rigorous conclusions. Modernism and postmodernism are not, then, two positions that are set against each other; they are one continuous whole, the two parts of a single dialectic. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: I wasn't impressed with Duffy on Post-Modernism and Mormon scholarship when it came out, and took note of Spencer's interesting reply at Square Two and saw Clark chiming in there as well. Duffy was everywhere for a while, publishing some very ambitious things in Sunstone and elsewhere. I wrote a long response to his Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates essay in Sunstone a decade ago, but all they allowed from me was about two paragraphs in the letters column. That was my last publication at Sunstone. I thought it was interesting that the editors quoted a reader whose response to Duffy's essay was "If this is correct, what meaning does my life have?" And they seemed to think that this deeply troubled response amounted to a ringing endorsement of the validity and power Duffy's "sociology of knowledge" approach. My full response is finally coming out in a Festschrift coming through the Interpreter Foundation fairly soon. I finished years ago, but other contributors to the book have been delinquent until lately. Duffy starts with a reference to this essay by Massimo Introvigne which I still like. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=1 It seems to me that a common theme from Vogel to Duffy and beyond is annoyance with any approach that leaves any room for faith. They seem to want it all nailed down and put away once and for all, and seem certain that there must be something existentially amiss in any intellectual approach that allows the possibility that such things as God, angels, resurrection, and translation from real plates could possibly exist and, horror or horrors, leave the possibility that any religion, and especially not Mormons can have reason to be binding. They want to be absolutely certain, with final, irrevocable, once and for all judgement, that there is no "cause to believe" worth nurturing. My favorite definition of Post Modernism came through Alan Goff, when he commented that Post-modernism is what happens the critical eye of modernism turns on itself and becomes self-reflective. This creates a bit of instability and uncertainty. But it should, and, according to Jesus, is necessary to "see clearly," first removing the beams from one's own eye, and considering the effects of one's own ideological preconceptions and personal limitations and mistakes. It's also part of 12 step recovery, and the difference between Alma doing a life review and seeing the need to personally change, and Laman and Lemuel turning towards fear and resentment, taking everyone's inventory but their own so as to continue their self-justification. It's always valuable to pay attention to the stories and examples that anyone puts forward as exemplary, as a defining moment to generalize from, as when Trump makes his over-arching claims about the general character of immigrants, or the reliability of CNN, the future business prospects of the Washington Post and New York Times, or the validity of Mueller's ongoing investigation. It is very possible not only to disagree, but to actively test and dispute the validity of his generalizations, even when specific incidents can be cited. Just how representative are they? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Thanks Kevin this is a keeper
Robert F. Smith Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: If you are saying there are non-Mormon Egyptologists that have written things that would authenticate any of the text of the BoA as a translation of the papyrus or that the papyrus had anything to do with Abraham, then you are correct, I'm only familiar with those non-Mormon Egyptologists that have confirmed that there is no connection. That is why I describe such opinions as "faith-based." They are opinions based on almost no familiarity with the actual data and issues on a scholarly basis. Instead of examining what normal, standard Egyptologists actually say in their regular peer-reviewed books and journals, we have an attack dog approach which enlightens no one. Confirmation bias does declare no connection, but that is not a scholarly message, as I point out in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9, Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I will admit that this is not one of those Mormon studies topics that I find of great interest. Largely because it was clear to me early on that there was nothing of substance to the apologetics here. Consequentially many moderate church apologists have created the catalyst theory which is officially sanctioned in the LDS church essay on the subject. It is the emotional "conservative" approach to Mormonism which defines the Gospel Topics Essays as "official" in Church sanction. That is nonsense, and the correct approach is to see recent essays as part of a long tradition of non-canonical Church statements on a variety of issues which swing from one position to another over time. The same applies to the "conservative" belief that LDS leaders are infallible (or nearly so), which is also nonsense. Scholars have been called upon to author the Gospel Topics Essays, and they do the best they can, which is not always good enough to be free from error. However, they do provide useful perspective on some hot-button issues. It is helpful to use such essays as jumping-off points for the ward in 5th Sunday discussions by both Relief Society and Elders Quorum combined. 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Honestly, I haven't read much of Nibley, this is largely a generational thing and that I wasn't exposed to Mormon studies until recently (about 5 years ago). I've been reading a lot of material since then, but haven't gone back to read Nibley stuff that I missed. I think Mormon studies has come a long way since he wrote though. I'm familiar with some non-Mormons who take interest in Mormonism, people like Jan Shipps, or Ann Taves, or John Turner. I'm reading On Zion's Mount by Jared Farmer right now, and I've read other books and essays by non-Mormons and or former Mormons of interest. Are you attempting to dismiss my opinion because you've read more or have lived longer than I have? Of course not, but earlier generations did not necessarily fit your apriori concepts about what has gone before, and that can be crucial to understanding what the truth is. Your descriptions of the past were in error, but discussions such as these may help you gain perspective. 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I guess I have to defend my right to an opinion here again. Lets see, what books have I read published by Oxford: Religion of a Different Color, Foundational Texts of Mormonism, Mormons and the Bible, In Heaven as it is on Earth, Standing Apart. Those are all I've read so far, and I own some more I haven't read yet as well. I think those were all written by Mormons. I also have read books from many other University Presses. I think our biggest disagreement on things usually stems from the fact that I don't follow the conservative apologetics very closely and I generally don't find their arguments very compelling either. FAIR and Interpreter aren't on my regular to read list. ................................ Passing judgment by reading only narrowly (by excluding FairMormon and Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central) is probably not a safe approach. Same applies to getting all your info from Pravda "Truth" (the official Soviet newspaper). So-called "conservatives" hew to that narrow path, thus missing the emotionally "liberal" purview gained by reading widely -- just the opposite of your ideology. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Again, my only issue was with old/new apologetics. I think you were taking me to be arguing something quite different. I'm still not at all clear what you mean by old and new apologetics, but it's clearly something different from how I stated it. Yes, I thought Joe's response was great. But he also noticed something in typical Mormon scholarship as well. (He was focused more on "Mormon Studies" rather than apologetics but I think it still applied) His bit on truth and Englightenment I think came out of the discussions we were all having on LDS-Herm at the time. (He, Adam Miller, Alan Goff and others) That said I tend to disagree with his claim of "the postmodern embrace of uncompromised nihilism." Even though I'd tend to agree that is a big problem in the type of postmodernism popular in English departments and so forth in the 90's. That nihilism is largely why I stopped calling myself a postmodernism. (That and the Sokal Hoax -- the reality was there was a lot of "word mysticism" disconnected from phenomenological investigation in all the bad postmodernism of the time) While the formatting in my comment at SquareTwo made it hard to see when I was quoting, I still think the Derrida quote is relevant. Q: So you would not consider yourself an anti-historicist? JD: Not at all. I think that one cannot read without trying to reconstruct the historical context but history is not the last word, the final key, of reading. Without being anti-historicist, I am suspicious of the traditional concepts of history, the Hegelian and Marxist concepts. I can't seem to find the quote. I think it was from Jim Faulconer but could be wrong. It was something like "a postmodern is someone who knows we need to surpass and correct modernism but also knows we can't escape it." Getting back to the original topic, Joe Spencer once said something that stuck with me. But postmodernism is not a positive alternative to modernism; it is a critical position that, from within modernism, follows modernism's presuppositions out to their most rigorous conclusions. Modernism and postmodernism are not, then, two positions that are set against each other; they are one continuous whole, the two parts of a single dialectic. It seems you haven't noticed that Joe supports the anti-foundationalism of post modernism, but not the "ethical"/political portion. (Marxism and it's relatives) So that conflict is the flaw that begs it's own deconstruction. And his view of historicism is still perspectivist - related to the intentions of the historian as well as events, making it anti-foundationalism. If you look up the post at which I mention the "old apologist" position I was contrasting Cartesianism with Anti foundationalism. In short I was contrasting the idea that there could be "spiritual facts" against the position that such a concept doesn't make sense, because facts must be objectively observable. It was at a reply to "church is true" where he was naming certain beliefs of what he calls the "Neo Apologists" against more traditional Cartesian ways of thinking, which includes the idea that "spiritual facts" can exist. Such beliefs include the idea that the Book of Mormon must be historically accurate for it's a spiritual truths to be true. I would call that a "spiritual fact" which confuses a historical Paradigm with a spiritual paradigm. I simply characterized the Cartesian position as "the old" apologists and the anti foundational apologist as the new apologists. For the anti foundationalism I used the term "postmodern." The distinction was casually made and not intended to be such a big deal. I will never see how the proposition "Jesus died on Calvary" is logically equivalent to "Jesus died for my sins." Those are two very different propositions requiring very different kinds of justification. Yes one can believe both paradigms at once but they are two different paradigms. Or perhaps that could be unified and seen as one Paradigm, the LDS paradigm. At some point it just becomes a question of where you want to draw the line. Here is a link to the original post that caused all the trouble. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70863-role-of-neo-or-progressive-apologetics-within-fairmormon/?do=findComment&comment=1209840729 Edited August 7, 2018 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It seems you haven't noticed that Joe supports the anti-foundationalism of post modernism, but not the "ethical"/political portion. (Marxism and it's relatives) Not sure what you're saying here. Maxism is anything but the ethical/political part of postmodernism. Hegel/Marx are modernists par excellance. To the second point, he (like me) doesn't like the ethical nihilism but I also think (as I'd said in the comments when the post came out many years ago) that within postmodernism there are invariant truths. That's not as popular a view, but it's definitely the view of Derrida. (Such truths are for him not fully present) 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I will never see how the proposition "Jesus died on Calvary" is logically equivalent to "Jesus died for my sins." Those are two very different propositions requiring very different kinds of justification. Yes one can hold both paradigms at once but they are two different paradigms. I'm not sure they're different paradigms at all, but I'll not push that debate. But I certainly agree they are different claims and need to be justified in different ways. 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Such beliefs include the idea that the Book of Mormon must be historically accurate for it's a spiritual truths to be true. Is the gathering of Israel as promised and prophesied in the text a spiritual truth? My claim is just Derrida's. "I think that one cannot read without trying to reconstruct the historical context but history is not the last word, the final key, of reading. Without being anti-historicist, I am suspicious of the traditional concepts of history, the Hegelian and Marxist concepts." The implication being that even statements about spiritual truths can't be divorced from historical context.
hope_for_things Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is the emotional "conservative" approach to Mormonism which defines the Gospel Topics Essays as "official" in Church sanction. That is nonsense, and the correct approach is to see recent essays as part of a long tradition of non-canonical Church statements on a variety of issues which swing from one position to another over time. I think the essays are substantively different and new territory for the church to officially sanction. Its not an emotional response by me or others, but its the explicit approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that differentiates these essays from other materials produced by scholars in the past. Quote Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties. https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng 29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is why I describe such opinions as "faith-based." They are opinions based on almost no familiarity with the actual data and issues on a scholarly basis. Instead of examining what normal, standard Egyptologists actually say in their regular peer-reviewed books and journals, we have an attack dog approach which enlightens no one. Confirmation bias does declare no connection, but that is not a scholarly message, as I point out in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9, Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . I don't want to get into too much detail on your essay or on my opinion of what you've written. You are clearly a very smart person, certainly much more educated than myself, and I can tell after reading through the first few pages of your essay that you want to take a methodical approach to the topic and I appreciate that your work exists and that you're doing this good work that is important for a certain audience. The paradigm that I'm operating with is just too different for me to engage thoughtfully on the points you're making. I struggle to find any common ground to build on, without coming across as condescending. Suffice it to say, I have zero confidence that the BoA text that Joseph produced was a translation from an ancient text, and the arguments to suggest this sound like psuedoscience to me. 36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Passing judgment by reading only narrowly (by excluding FairMormon and Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central) is probably not a safe approach. Same applies to getting all your info from Pravda "Truth" (the official Soviet newspaper). So-called "conservatives" hew to that narrow path, thus missing the emotionally "liberal" purview gained by reading widely -- just the opposite of your ideology. I absolutely agree with this idea in principle. I think we need to read as widely as possible to help us keep grounded and to challenge our perspectives. This is part of why I engage in this message board. I spent time engaged with FAIR and Interpreter for a time, but I've since gravitated towards less polemic work. I read both non-Mormons and Mormons. I feel like some of the authors are conservative enough to push me to consider alternative points of view. I also read perspectives that border more on antagonistic to the church from time to time, but I typically don't like that material either. I've found a niche of material for my primary consumption that fits best for me, but I will read things on different ends of the spectrum occasionally to challenge my thinking. You should do the same if you aren't already. Are you reading books from Taves, Turner, Mueller, Signature Books, and other non-Mormons as well?
mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Not sure what you're saying here. Maxism is anything but the ethical/political part of postmodernism. Hegel/Marx are modernists par excellance. My error - I read the Derrida quote as being from Joe. But I do think that Marxism fits his description of the "ethics of the marginalized" Quote My claim is just Derrida's. "I think that one cannot read without trying to reconstruct the historical context but history is not the last word, the final key, of reading. Without being anti-historicist, I am suspicious of the traditional concepts of history, the Hegelian and Marxist concepts." The implication being that even statements about spiritual truths can't be divorced from historical context. Actually there IS a way I could understand that kind of "historicism" as a kind of contextual historicism- what a given group (like Mormons) believe is "historical" - that is their paradigm for history- might see as "true" within the community. So for example the creation of a historical context as a social construction might be for example, a particular theory like the Two Cumorah theory. One might see that theory as -say- (if actually accepted) "true" within Mormonism, without being "true" to secular historians. Now THAT I can understand, since I believe that history itself is a social construction and we can never know the human element (private motivations, recollections which may not be "accurate" etc- the subjective interpretation stuff) portion of "what really happened". So given that that portion of history is perspectivist, I suppose I could support seeing the BOM as history in a Mormon context- and I do. I just have never thought of it that way. Though I do not expect secular historians to believe that angels gave Joseph the plates- I can and do accept that as historically accurate within Mormonism. I think that is the problem with this whole "Neo Apologist" approach- it is a kind of reverse historicism which ends up being just as foundationalist as what it tries to overcome. Neo Apoligist: "The Book of Mormon is not historical but valuable as scripture" - this is still a statement about foundational history about what is NOT "Historical". It takes history as an unchangeable fact which either includes Nephites or excludes them- in this case excluding them. That is at variance with a truly perspectivist view which says something like "Yes- that's true for Mormons, but not for anyone else" Just rambling on low blood sugar..... Edited August 8, 2018 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: My error - I read the Derrida quote as being from Joe. But I do think that Marxism fits his description of the "ethics of the marginalized" To him Marxism is the denial of the marginalized. Everything is present and calculable. He thinks deconstruction is heir to a certain "spirit of Marx" but that seems different. It's a spirit of responsibility rather than the variant of Hegelianism in which everything is reducible to material needs with no spirit in each person. Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble
Ryan Dahle Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Confirmation bias does declare no connection, but that is not a scholarly message, as I point out in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9, Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . I wasn't aware of this online publication. I thought it an excellent, brief summary. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I think the essays are substantively different and new territory for the church to officially sanction. Its not an emotional response by me or others, but its the explicit approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that differentiates these essays from other materials produced by scholars in the past. https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng . You prove my point: You are arguing the faithful, 'conservative" position which one hears from loyal Mormons all the time. You look at the Essays as frozen in time (sychronic), while I look at them as an epiphenomenon (in diachronic context). I am the true liberal, you are the true conservative. 😎 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I don't want to get into too much detail on your essay or on my opinion of what you've written. You are clearly a very smart person, certainly much more educated than myself, and I can tell after reading through the first few pages of your essay that you want to take a methodical approach to the topic and I appreciate that your work exists and that you're doing this good work that is important for a certain audience. The paradigm that I'm operating with is just too different for me to engage thoughtfully on the points you're making. I struggle to find any common ground to build on, without coming across as condescending. Suffice it to say, I have zero confidence that the BoA text that Joseph produced was a translation from an ancient text, and the arguments to suggest this sound like psuedoscience to me. Of course it does, and that is a very common position taken by those unfamiliar with the issues. Same applies to those taking a faithful position, who likewise have no idea what the issues are. Both are blind faith positions typical of conservatives. Liberals think outside the box. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I absolutely agree with this idea in principle. I think we need to read as widely as possible to help us keep grounded and to challenge our perspectives. This is part of why I engage in this message board. I spent time engaged with FAIR and Interpreter for a time, but I've since gravitated towards less polemic work. I read both non-Mormons and Mormons. I feel like some of the authors are conservative enough to push me to consider alternative points of view. I also read perspectives that border more on antagonistic to the church from time to time, but I typically don't like that material either. I've found a niche of material for my primary consumption that fits best for me, but I will read things on different ends of the spectrum occasionally to challenge my thinking. You should do the same if you aren't already. Are you reading books from Taves, Turner, Mueller, Signature Books, and other non-Mormons as well? I review Signature books, as well as books by such talented writers as Adam Miller. I attend lectures by Taves, and discuss them here. “Adam Miller Reviewed,” Jan 2013, published July 5, 2013, as “Adam Miller’s New Hermeneutic?” Interpreter, 6 (2013), 1-7, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/adam-millers-new-hermeneutic/#more-3079 . “If There Be Faults, They Be Faults of a Man,” Interpreter, 8 (2014):195-203, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/if-there-be-faults-they-be-faults-of-a-man/ . 1
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: You should do the same if you aren't already. Are you reading books from Taves, Turner, Mueller, Signature Books, and other non-Mormons as well? OH my gosh- you don't know Robert. The man is a walking encyclopedia/bibliography on EVERYTHING Mormon and half of the universe of what is not. 3
Glenn101 Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I don't want to get into too much detail on your essay or on my opinion of what you've written. You are clearly a very smart person, certainly much more educated than myself, and I can tell after reading through the first few pages of your essay that you want to take a methodical approach to the topic and I appreciate that your work exists and that you're doing this good work that is important for a certain audience. The paradigm that I'm operating with is just too different for me to engage thoughtfully on the points you're making. I struggle to find any common ground to build on, without coming across as condescending. Suffice it to say, I have zero confidence that the BoA text that Joseph produced was a translation from an ancient text, and the arguments to suggest this sound like psuedoscience to me. I understand that you have such a paradigm, but I do not understand such a disregard of scholarship which does not fit your paradigm as pseudo-science. Egyptology is not a pseudo-science. Robert uses several non-LDS scholars to make some of his points. Thus far you have not engages in a discussion of any of the scholarship. It is difficult to have any type of informative discussion if the only thing you have to offer is an opinion based upon you paradigms but offer nothing that can be either refuted or confirmed. Glenn 1
hope_for_things Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You prove my point: You are arguing the faithful, 'conservative" position which one hears from loyal Mormons all the time. You look at the Essays as frozen in time (sychronic), while I look at them as an epiphenomenon (in diachronic context). I am the true liberal, you are the true conservative. 😎 No, you misunderstand. I said the essays are different than scholarship in the past in that they have the official endorsement of the hierarchy. I’m not aware of any past scholarship that had this. But I never said I expect the words of the essays to be stagnant. They don’t have authorship attributed and they aren’t dated. Most thoughtful people expect them to be updated as time goes on including me. Also, not sure what you mean by a true liberal or true conservative in this context. I have both liberal and conservative leanings both politically and religiously. 43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course it does, and that is a very common position taken by those unfamiliar with the issues. Same applies to those taking a faithful position, who likewise have no idea what the issues are. Both are blind faith positions typical of conservatives. Liberals think outside the box. I was thinking about my comment earlier, and was considering revising it. I don’t want to just label you as working in the realm of pseudoscience and I apologize for making that statement earlier. Upon further reflection I would like to learn more about your perspective on the BoA since you certainly have studied it more than I have. I would like to know what the most compelling evididence you think is for ancient authenticity. If you could point me to one or two at the most evidences that I can really focus in on and learn more about. Now also recognize that I have an established paradigm I’m operating with as you select those items you’d like me to research. I don’t believe in the super natural, I find critical textual biblical scholarship compelling to explain the origins of the Bible, and from what I have read of the BoA scholarship, the most compelling data shows a direct connection between the KEP and the symbols on the papyrus fragments. I’m just telling you these things up front so you can point me towards things I might consider that I might be more open to persuasion on. 43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I review Signature books, as well as books by such talented writers as Adam Miller. I attend lectures by Taves, and discuss them here. “Adam Miller Reviewed,” Jan 2013, published July 5, 2013, as “Adam Miller’s New Hermeneutic?” Interpreter, 6 (2013), 1-7, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/adam-millers-new-hermeneutic/#more-3079 . “If There Be Faults, They Be Faults of a Man,” Interpreter, 8 (2014):195-203, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/if-there-be-faults-they-be-faults-of-a-man/ . 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: OH my gosh- you don't know Robert. The man is a walking encyclopedia/bibliography on EVERYTHING Mormon and half of the universe of what is not. So, since you’ve challenged my bonafides a bit, I would like to also challenge yours as that seems only fair. My impressions from reading you is that you are very familiar with what I call Mormon apologetics, but you aren’t as well versed in broader Mormon studies. Benjamin Park puts together an annual review of the best books and essays in Mormon studies each year, and I consider this one of the best resources for a broad view of what’s going on in Mormon scholarship. Can you take a look at the below links of the past 3 years of his reviews, and tell me what books you’ve read from these lists. My impression, which may be incorrect, is that you’re not swimming in the same materials I am as far as Mormon studies goes. https://juvenileinstructor.org/2017-in-retrospect/ https://juvenileinstructor.org/2016-in-retrospect/ https://juvenileinstructor.org/2015-in-retrospect/
hope_for_things Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: I understand that you have such a paradigm, but I do not understand such a disregard of scholarship which does not fit your paradigm as pseudo-science. Egyptology is not a pseudo-science. Robert uses several non-LDS scholars to make some of his points. Thus far you have not engages in a discussion of any of the scholarship. It is difficult to have any type of informative discussion if the only thing you have to offer is an opinion based upon you paradigms but offer nothing that can be either refuted or confirmed. Glenn Fair enough, I had a similar thought after reflecting on my last post. See my most recent reply to Robert. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: No, you misunderstand. I said the essays are different than scholarship in the past in that they have the official endorsement of the hierarchy. I’m not aware of any past scholarship that had this. But I never said I expect the words of the essays to be stagnant. They don’t have authorship attributed and they aren’t dated. Most thoughtful people expect them to be updated as time goes on including me. Also, not sure what you mean by a true liberal or true conservative in this context. I have both liberal and conservative leanings both politically and religiously. Conservatives toe the party line or religious dogma, which is what you do in taking the Essays as normative and official. I do not. Why? Because, as I have repeatedly said, they are transitory and are merely the latest in a long list of statements by the Brethren, or commissioned by the Brethren. I like the Essays, and think that they are useful sources for discussion on 5th Sundays, or for those who just don't know much about LDS theology, but they do not provide any final answers. The Scriptural Canon is normative. Not the Essays. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I was thinking about my comment earlier, and was considering revising it. I don’t want to just label you as working in the realm of pseudoscience and I apologize for making that statement earlier. Upon further reflection I would like to learn more about your perspective on the BoA since you certainly have studied it more than I have. I would like to know what the most compelling evididence you think is for ancient authenticity. If you could point me to one or two at the most evidences that I can really focus in on and learn more about. Now also recognize that I have an established paradigm I’m operating with as you select those items you’d like me to research. I don’t believe in the super natural, I find critical textual biblical scholarship compelling to explain the origins of the Bible, and from what I have read of the BoA scholarship, the most compelling data shows a direct connection between the KEP and the symbols on the papyrus fragments. I’m just telling you these things up front so you can point me towards things I might consider that I might be more open to persuasion on. I don't believe in the supernatural either, so we have something in common. But then LDS theology is not supernatural. As for biblical scholarship, I accept the historical critical method, and have extensive training in archeology/anthropology and biblical languages. That informs everything I do, but that doesn't make me correct on everything -- just helps me to know where the beartraps are and to help me avoid them. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: So, since you’ve challenged my bonafides a bit, I would like to also challenge yours as that seems only fair. My impressions from reading you is that you are very familiar with what I call Mormon apologetics, but you aren’t as well versed in broader Mormon studies. Benjamin Park puts together an annual review of the best books and essays in Mormon studies each year, and I consider this one of the best resources for a broad view of what’s going on in Mormon scholarship. Can you take a look at the below links of the past 3 years of his reviews, and tell me what books you’ve read from these lists. My impression, which may be incorrect, is that you’re not swimming in the same materials I am as far as Mormon studies goes. https://juvenileinstructor.org/2017-in-retrospect/ https://juvenileinstructor.org/2016-in-retrospect/ https://juvenileinstructor.org/2015-in-retrospect/ . I'll take a look at Park's annual reviews, which I have not seen before, and let you know what I think. Meantime, you may be correct about us not swimming in the same pond. I am just an old man who hasn't done water aerobics lately, but I was doing it earlier this year. Time to get back to it. Good for my health.
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: So, since you’ve challenged my bonafides a bit.... Bon fires are illegal in California. Besides mine is bigger than yours. Edited August 8, 2018 by mfbukowski Too snarky 1
hope_for_things Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Conservatives toe the party line or religious dogma, which is what you do in taking the Essays as normative and official. I do not. Why? Because, as I have repeatedly said, they are transitory and are merely the latest in a long list of statements by the Brethren, or commissioned by the Brethren. I like the Essays, and think that they are useful sources for discussion on 5th Sundays, or for those who just don't know much about LDS theology, but they do not provide any final answers. The Scriptural Canon is normative. Not the Essays. I'm still not sure what you mean by a conservative in this context or what you mean by taking the Essays as normative. I'm merely pointing out that they have an official stamp of approval that prior LDS scholarship didn't (you say there has been a long list of statements commissioned by the brethren, but I can't think of any.) In a correlated Mormon world this approval by church leaders makes a difference. I imagine prior to correlation that this stamp of approval wasn't as important. But deference to authorities has always been a part of Mormon culture, especially when leaders are officially recognized as prophets. Its not on the same level as canon in my opinion. Thanks for the rest of your reply, let me know what you think of Park's lists of Mormon studies material. And let me know if you have any suggestions on what you think the most compelling BoA evidences are and I will spend some time reviewing the sources you provide. Thanks
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 (edited) The essays list themselves as being about Mormon history. Why do you think they are relevant to theology or Mormon studies? "Once again, this is my attempt to recap the historiography of Mormonism from the past twelve months" I really don't want to discuss it or open a can of worms. The point is that in my opinion they are not relevant to theology which is what my interest is. We have been talking about post-modernism, not Mormon history. Discussions about post-modernism a include questions about what history even is but certainly reading stories of pioneers is not relevant to what is or is not post-modernism. Edited August 8, 2018 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts