David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s creating a lot of noise and spectacle — or, to use a Shakespearean phrase, sound and fury. Whether that amounts to the Church being torn apart is highly dubious, though I have no doubt a fair number of people wish it were so. 

Where I think it may be having a more pronounced effect is in the number of outsiders who are dissuaded from the outset from giving the Church of Jesus Christ a fair hearing, evidenced, perhaps, in the diminishing of the rate at which people embrace the restored gospel. This should not be altogether surprising, as we have been warned in the record of Nephi’s vision that, though the Church will be over the face of the earth, its numbers will be relatively few by reason of the devil’s influence. 

One thing we cannot do in reaction is to capitulate and compromise our core principles and values, for if we did so, the Lord would reject us as a people. 

Our current teachings regarding the place of LGBTQ individuals in the plan of salvation IS the “capitulation and compromise of our core principles and values” that, IMO, is part of the reason fewer people are choosing to embrace our current version of the restored gospel. 

 

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

it's funny, our perspective.  Last year, nearly one year ago to the day, my wife decided she's done.  She hasn't been back since.  I was done too, in a different sense of course.  I still go on occasion.  But since that time, we've seen so many others who have "left the Church".  We keep running into new ones.  We keep hearing people's stories and it feels as time goes by that there are millions of us.  But this last week I woke up and found myself with some time and headed in for sacrament meeting.  Looking around, its obvious most of those who we went with to Church for a good decade (as we lived int his particular house) are still there.  If anyone in that ward followed our same course, we don't know it, not yet.  

Also on my wife's side, everyone remains active in the Church.  On mine?  The same, except for a niece.  

In one measure it feels like everyone's joining us in calling it quits in another it feels like no one is.  With that said, I think the Church has plenty to fix, plenty of things to move on, or else some of the trends we've seen in the larger world-size perspective, will only get worse.  

Of course this isn't a phenomenon unique to the Mormon traditions either.  Its happening everywhere in the western world.  Younger generations are eschewing organized religion, I think largely because these traditions aren't adjusting to the times as quickly as necessary to become relevant to contemporary concerns.  

However, this is leaving a gaping hole for humans with brains that have evolved to relate to spiritual things.  I worry that pseudo scientific thinking is filling in the gaps in some cases and these ways of thinking could be even more dangerous than traditional religious institutions.  

This is why religions need to innovate in creative ways.  Unfortunately with a lack of leadership diversity and a structure that values the status quo, I don't see the COJCOLDS making the necessary changes to effectively take advantage of the opportunity.  Perhaps some other groups will figure out a way to do this.  Only time will tell.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Our current teachings regarding the place of LGBTQ individuals in the plan of salvation IS the “capitulation and compromise of our core principles and values” that, IMO, is part of the reason fewer people are choosing to embrace our current version of the restored gospel. 

 

It has always been the teaching of the Church that the only acceptable expression of sexuality is between a man and a woman united in marriage. That continues to be the position of the Church today. That this would be regarded as “capitulation and compromise” in our values strikes me as blatantly Orwellian. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

it's funny, our perspective.  Last year, nearly one year ago to the day, my wife decided she's done.  She hasn't been back since.  I was done too, in a different sense of course.  I still go on occasion.  But since that time, we've seen so many others who have "left the Church".  We keep running into new ones.  We keep hearing people's stories and it feels as time goes by that there are millions of us.  But this last week I woke up and found myself with some time and headed in for sacrament meeting.  Looking around, its obvious most of those who we went with to Church for a good decade (as we lived int his particular house) are still there.  If anyone in that ward followed our same course, we don't know it, not yet.  

Also on my wife's side, everyone remains active in the Church.  On mine?  The same, except for a niece.  

Interesting stuff.  Thank you for sharing.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In one measure it feels like everyone's joining us in calling it quits in another it feels like no one is.  With that said, I think the Church has plenty to fix, plenty of things to move on, or else some of the trends we've seen in the larger world-size perspective, will only get worse.  

The Church has always had "plenty to fix."  And I think it has worked hard on such things.  The Church has, I think, markedly improved its approach to same-sex orientation and same-sex marriage.  It will never be enough for some, I am sure.  And for such folks (the Dan Reynolds types, for whom anything less than utter capitulation on the Law of Chastity is insufficient), any such improvements are just window dressing.  But I think a fair-minded assessment would acknowledge significant improvements.

The Church's finances are in very good order.

The Church is making changes, even substantial ones, to meet changing times and circumstances.  Less time in meetings, more time in interacting with and serving others, and in the home, and in personal study.  This is really good stuff.

The Church is expanding the missionary program to make it more adaptable and accessible for those who otherwise could not have served (or would likely have not been able to complete a proselytizing mission).  My son just completed his Church Service Mission last week, and it has had a profound effect on his life.

The Church's humanitarian efforts are wonderful.  Many of them, many of them, fly under the radar.  That is, I think, how it should be.

The "ministering" program is starting work.  

The Church has been more responsive to input from members on various issues (the role of women in matters of church governance, improved interactions with and approaches to SSA-related issues, etc.).  Again, some will never been satisfied with, and therefore refuse to acknowledge, such efforts.  But the improvements are there and are ongoing.

The Church seems to be genuinely interested in doing what is right, even when doing so is not popular.  

And the list goes on.  I am quite happy with the Church.  Yes, it has its flaws.  Yes, it needs to improve.  Don't we all?  The question is how can I help to improve it.  I find that I must reject the scorched-earth, my-way-or-the-highway pressure tactics employed by people like Kate Kelly and Sam Young.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has always been the teaching of the Church that the only acceptable expression of sexuality is between a man and a woman united in marriage. That continues to be the position of the Church today. That this would be regarded as “capitulation and compromise” in our values strikes me as blatantly Orwellian. 

From Wikipedia:  "Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. 

Not sure how my statement was Orwellian.

And I see our current teachings as a capitulation and compromise of our core values because they are inconsistent with the recorded New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Our current teachings regarding the place of LGBTQ individuals in the plan of salvation IS the “capitulation and compromise of our core principles and values” that, IMO, is part of the reason fewer people are choosing to embrace our current version of the restored gospel. 

I disagree.  One of "our core principles and values" is the Law of Chastity.  It is one of the most important precepts governing our behavior.  We are not at liberty to disregard it or unilaterally alter it to suit prevailing social trends.

The LDS Church is spending untold amounts of time, money and effort to share our beliefs and invite others to join us.  We also have General Authorities constantly counseling us regarding charity, fellowshipping, love, compassion, and comparable traits and behaviors that are antithetical to the notion you present here.  We literally want everyone in the world to join our community of faith.  And yet that community has boundaries, right?  It must have them, else it's not a community.  This means that there are some who, through circumstance or choice or some combination of the two, are not able to join the Church, or else must be excluded from the Church.  That said, the Church's policies and practices pertaining to "exclusion" are very, very, narrow:

• Murderers and most of those who commit incest are excluded as a category.  I don't think the number of such persons is very high.  And the Church's position on such behavior is understandable and reasonable.
• Persons guilty of serious and unrepented of wrongdoing can be subject to excommunication.  And again, the Church's position on such behavior is understandable and reasonable.
• People who are in a lifestyle that violates the Law of Chastity (such as being in a live-in relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or being in a same-sex marriage, or being in a polygamous marriage) are not allowed to be baptized (or, if already a member, they are subject to church discipline).  This one, I think, can be quite difficult, but I think it speaks to the seriousness with which the Church treats the Law of Chastity.
• Children whose parents are in a lifestyle that violates the Law of Chastity and the Church's teachings on marriage (same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage) are not allowed to be baptized until after they reach the age of emancipation/adulthood (18), move out of their parents' home, and privately (as in to the Church, not to the world) and specifically disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and/or marriage (or, for those coming from polygamous families, they must disavow the practice of polygamy).  This one can also be quite difficult, but it too speaks to the seriousness with which the Church treats the Law of Chastity.
• People who engage in threatening or violent or disruptive behavior are not allowed to attend church meetings.  These "boundaries" arise out of safety considerations, and of maintaining decorum and reverence, and are understandable and reasonable.

I think that's about it.  

The Church's "teachings regarding the place of LGBTQ individuals in the plan of salvation" are . . . indistinguishable from the Church's teachings regarding the place of everyone else in the Plan of Salvation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Wikipedia:  "Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. 

Not sure how my statement was Orwellian.

And I see our current teachings as a capitulation and compromise of our core values because they are inconsistent with the recorded New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ.

The aspect of Orwellianism I have in mind is “double think” or “Newspeak” and disinformation as applied to your branding of the consistent sustaining by the Church of the law of chastity as “capitulation and compromise of core values.” That makes no sense at all, and the term that immediately came to my mind to characterize it was “Orwellian.”

As Smac so concisely put it: “The Church's "teachings regarding the place of LGBTQ individuals in the plan of salvation" are . . . indistinguishable from the Church's teachings regarding the place of everyone else in the Plan of Salvation. “

Edited November 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[phaedrus ut]

It's strange that the strongest opinions in this thread seem to have come from those who didn't watch or listen to the interview.  I'd hate to be so rigid in my thinking that I'm afraid to listen to someone else's experience. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Like when we rejected polygamy?  Mormons at the time rejected that core principle and value.

John Taylor famously quoted that the church would never abandon “the principle.”  “The Kingdom of God or Nothing!” he famously said in defense of polygamy in 1857 when it was commonly taught that practicing polygamy was essential to exhalation to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. 33 years later that all changed when his successor Wilford Woodruff revealed what would become OD 2.

Things change in the church. Things that have been held onto dearly have been let go. I suspect that this can and will continue. What ‘doctrines’ and practices will be changed  no one knows.

I'm sorry, but it seems rather facile for you to deem yourself fit to criticize prior leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from, I presume, the comfort of heated (or air-conditioned, as the case may be), well-furnished, well-appointed, well-stocked surroundings, from behind the anonymity provided by a computer screen and a pseudonym.  Those leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ rejected polygyny!  How could they?!  Just because the Church of Jesus Christ as an entity was essentially being disincorporated and/or dismantled, just because its properties were being seized, just because its leaders were being hounded into hiding and its members were being disenfranchised!  Yes, things change from time to time in the Church of Jesus Christ, but if this particular "change" had not occurred, you wouldn't even get the opportunity to render your criticism from the comfortable circumstances previously described in which I presume you find yourself, because the Church as an institution would have ceased to exist, thus rendering your criticism moot!

Perhaps that was your point ... that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should have stuck to their guns (certainly, the anonymous you, who feels absolutely free to criticize that decision in the comfort of your current circumstances would have stuck to your guns had you found yourself in their circumstances ... right?  )  Of course, such action would render your criticism moot, since the Church of Jesus Christ would have ceased to exist.  Maybe you'd be just fine with that, but count me out!

Edited November 27, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course this isn't a phenomenon unique to the Mormon traditions either.  Its happening everywhere in the western world.  Younger generations are eschewing organized religion, I think largely because these traditions aren't adjusting to the times as quickly as necessary to become relevant to contemporary concerns.  

However, this is leaving a gaping hole for humans with brains that have evolved to relate to spiritual things.  I worry that pseudo scientific thinking is filling in the gaps in some cases and these ways of thinking could be even more dangerous than traditional religious institutions.  

This is why religions need to innovate in creative ways.  Unfortunately with a lack of leadership diversity and a structure that values the status quo, I don't see the COJCOLDS making the necessary changes to effectively take advantage of the opportunity.  Perhaps some other groups will figure out a way to do this.  Only time will tell.  

 

Excellent points.  I agree.  I think if other groups start to figure it out, it'd go a long way for the Church to have a potential path forward.  God works in mysterious ways, I suppose.  I'm getting good mileage out of that phrase today.  

[Analytics]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 5:29 PM, smac97 said:

Yep.  I utilize my training as an attorney (a form of scholarship) all the time to advance apologetic arguments.  Of course I can do this.  Of course it works (IMO).

An excellent point.  "The tools of scholarship" can only take us so far.  But to suggest that these tools cannot be used to advance religious ideas is weird....

I just finished listening to the podcast. I think you are misunderstanding where Bokovoy is coming from when he says you can't use the "tools of scholarship" to defend the Book of Abraham. He isn't saying that as an a priori rule you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief. Rather, he is saying that if you want to honestly and competently apply the tools of scholarship to something, you need to apply it to the sum total of all the evidence, not just the isolated fragments of evidence that you hand pick based on how well they support the position you are advocating. You can't use the tools of scholarship to support the historicity of the Book of Abraham because the honest and competent application of the tools of scholarship make an overwhelming case that it was written in the 19th Century.

Riffing off of your metaphor, his point is like saying "Yes, a contractor can use a hammer to pound a plastic nail into drywall, but not into solid granite. You can't do that--it doesn't work."

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:43 PM, clarkgoble said:

It's an odd argument. There's lots of arguments against the Ptolemaic copy theory but he's just disparaging all religious thinking more or less.

Of course if he doesn't believe any of the basic truth claims of Mormonism this makes sense. But he should just be forthright that's his argument. Heaven knows there's tons of people who think that way....

It's worth noting how subtle Bokovoy is in his thinking. When he finished his mission in 92, he was a well-educated, Bruce-R-McConkie-Stage-I Latter-day Saint. And he was obsessive about studying Church history and Church doctrine. He loved it. While pursuing his undergraduate degree at UVCC, he was voraciously studying everything he could get his hands on regarding what prophets have taught. He discovered on his own that the problems surrounding the Adam-God doctrine were more subtle and formidable than he had thought, and he had a stage-II crisis of faith. He then worked through it and emerged with a more sophisticated stage-III level of faith.

Over the next 25 years, he studied the Bible, other ancient documents, and ancient history deeply. He became very good at understanding how the religious ideas in the ancient near east evolved and tie together. And this led to a series of faith crises, each of which he worked through. He was faithful and loved the gospel, loved Jesus, loved the Saints, loved the prophets. He loved it all and was fully committed. 

If the cycle of seeing problems, studying them deeply, praying fervently, listening to the spirit intently, and then emerging with a more sophisticated, higher stage of faith continues, Bokovoy is now at something like the VIIIth stage of faith. It's important to understand that until very recently, he was a professional seminary teacher, and he was always very transparent with his beliefs, concerns, and faith with the CES administration. In the end, he approached the CES administration and resigned because his beliefs were too incompatible with a few of the Church's positions (and he did that a couple of years before he became vested in the CES pension plan).

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I just finished listening to the podcast. I think you are misunderstanding where Bokovoy is coming from when he says you can't use the "tools of scholarship" to defend the Book of Abraham. He isn't saying that as an a priori rule you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief. Rather, he is saying that if you want to honestly and competently apply the tools of scholarship to something, you need to apply it to the sum total of all the evidence, not just the isolated fragments of evidence that you hand pick based on how well they support the position you are advocating. You can't use the tools of scholarship to support the historicity of the Book of Abraham because the honest and competent application of the tools of scholarship make an overwhelming case that it was written in the 19th Century.

And yet . . . there are many intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who who do not think that "the tools of scholarship make an overwhelming case that it was written in the 19th Century."  So unless you are proposing something like "Yeah, but all those guys lack intellectual integrity," your argument doesn't work.  It is not self-evident.  No such showing has been made.

Moreover, what I said before bears repetition: "The tools of scholarship" can only take us so far.  But to suggest that these tools cannot be used at all to advance religious ideas is . . . weird.

"The tools of scholarship" can't tell us if God exists.  Or if Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  Or if Joseph Smith experienced genuine theophanies, or if he found genuine and ancient plates.  And so on.  However, I like these comments by Daniel Peterson regarding the role of scholarship in religious devotion:

Quote

Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: “The power of the Holy Ghost … must ever be the chief source of evidence for the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

Yet scholarship has a definite place even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” 

That said, I do need to listen to the interview.  I'll do it.

Quote

Riffing off of your metaphor, his point is like saying "Yes, a contractor can use a hammer to pound a plastic nail into drywall, but not into solid granite. You can't do that--it doesn't work."

Yes, it does work (or, perhaps more fairly, it can work). 

You just barely said: "He isn't saying that as an a priori rule you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief."  Now you are saying that "it doesn't work."

Quote

It's worth noting how subtle Bokovoy is in his thinking. When he finished his mission in 92, he was a well-educated, Bruce-R-McConkie-Stage-I Latter-day Saint. And he was obsessive about studying Church history and Church doctrine. He loved it. While pursuing his undergraduate degree at UVCC, he was voraciously studying everything he could get his hands on regarding what prophets have taught. He discovered on his own that the problems surrounding the Adam-God doctrine were more subtle and formidable than he had thought, and he had a stage-II crisis of faith. He then worked through it and emerged with a more sophisticated stage-III level of faith.

Okay.

Quote

Over the next 25 years, he studied the Bible, other ancient documents, and ancient history deeply. He became very good at understanding how the religious ideas in the ancient near east evolved and tie together. And this led to a series of faith crises, each of which he worked through. He was faithful and loved the gospel, loved Jesus, loved the Saints, loved the prophets. He loved it all and was fully committed. 

Okay.

Quote

If the cycle of seeing problems, studying them deeply, praying fervently, listening to the spirit intently, and then emerging with a more sophisticated, higher stage of faith continues, Bokovoy is now at something like the VIIIth stage of faith.

I think it's better to keep the tripartite model, with the understanding that migration back and forth between Stage 2 and Stage 3 is possible.

I know people who are very much like David Bokovoy in terms of erudition, study, effort, commitment, and so on, and who remain at Stage 3.  

Quote

It's important to understand that until very recently, he was a professional seminary teacher, and he was always very transparent with his beliefs, concerns, and faith with the CES administration. In the end, he approached the CES administration and resigned because his beliefs were too incompatible with a few of the Church's positions (and he did that a couple of years before he became vested in the CES pension plan).

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you presenting an Argument from Authority here?  It sounds like it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 27, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet . . . there are many intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who who do not think that "the tools of scholarship make an overwhelming case that it was written in the 19th Century."  So unless you are proposing something like "Yeah, but all those guys lack intellectual integrity," your argument doesn't work.  It is not self-evident.  No such showing has been made.

I wouldn't say that they "lack intellectual integrity", but I would say that they have a bias that is strongly influencing their perspective.  I would also say they aren't approaching the issue objectively.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Church is fairly dependent on the strength of its membership in North America.  

However, it is not the whole of the Church nor should it be treated as if it is.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

It's strange that the strongest opinions in this thread seem to have come from those who didn't watch or listen to the interview.  I'd hate to be so rigid in my thinking that I'm afraid to listen to someone else's experience. 

 

Phaedrus 

It is kind of rigid to assume people aren't listening to the podcast out of fear rather than another reason, such as they don't like podcasts.

It is not as if this renders it impossible to be familiar with David's ideas or the progression of them as he has written extensively in many places, including on this board though it has been awhile.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is kind of rigid to assume people aren't listening to the podcast out of fear rather than another reason, such as they don't like podcasts.

It is not as if this renders it impossible to be familiar with David's ideas or the progression of them as he has written extensively in many places, including on this board though it has been awhile.

I think the point is and has always been, its fine not to listen.  But it's odd to have so much to say on the topic when they won't listen or consider.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the point is and has always been, its fine not to listen.  But it's odd to have so much to say on the topic when they won't listen or consider.  

I don't disagree with that.  I disagree with framing the motivation of not listening as anything besides why the person says they won't listen to them, if they do.  I have no problem with challenging conclusions drawn prior to exposure, but it should be remembered there are other ways of learning his POV and so the topic may have been considered through other avenues at least in part and therefore it is reasonable to respond based on that previous knowledge.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

When he finished his mission in 92, he was a well-educated, Bruce-R-McConkie-Stage-I Latter-day Saint. And he was obsessive about studying Church history and Church doctrine. He loved it. While pursuing his undergraduate degree at UVCC, he was voraciously studying everything he could get his hands on regarding what prophets have taught. He discovered on his own that the problems surrounding the Adam-God doctrine were more subtle and formidable than he had thought, and he had a stage-II crisis of faith. He then worked through it and emerged with a more sophisticated stage-III level of faith.

No offense, but if you're viewing it all through Fowler's faith stages that's completely implausible as Fowler's work is just junk psychology and pseudo-science at best. 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't disagree with that.  I disagree with framing the motivation of not listening as anything besides why the person says they won't listen to them, if they do.  I have no problem with challenging conclusions drawn prior to exposure, but it should be remembered there are other ways of learning his POV and so the topic may have been considered through other avenues at least in part and therefore it is reasonable to respond based on that previous knowledge.

Gotcha.  

[phaedrus ut]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is kind of rigid to assume people aren't listening to the podcast out of fear rather than another reason, such as they don't like podcasts.

It is not as if this renders it impossible to be familiar with David's ideas or the progression of them as he has written extensively in many places, including on this board though it has been awhile.

Great they can watch the 3 hour video which is also easily available.  If you care enough to be critical of someone and post about it in a forum you probably shouldn't do so from complete ignorance of the interview.  

 

Phaedrus 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Great they can watch the 3 hour video which is also easily available.  If you care enough to be critical of someone and post about it in a forum you probably shouldn't do so from complete ignorance of the interview.  

 

Phaedrus 

Agreed.  There's a thread about a book I never read.  I haven't commented.  Seems like a reasonable approach to me.  

[phaedrus ut]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  There's a thread about a book I never read.  I haven't commented.  Seems like a reasonable approach to me.  

I'm not a believer and I'd say that David still is yet I found it interesting.  He speaks highly of the church and I don't believe it is at all threatening to believers.  Topics like politics or religion are so emotionally charged it's easy to retreat into your own echo chamber.  I do it all the time.  But I've found when I step outside my comfort zone and truly listen to opposing ideas I found find people making thoughtful well reasoned arguments that shouldn't just be dismissed because of a bias I have.  It's one of the reasons why I participate here because I enjoy the subject of Mormonism and I like considered opinions on all sides. 

 

Phaedrus 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn't say that they "lack intellectual integrity", but I would say that they have a bias that is strongly influencing their perspective.  I would also say they aren't approaching the issue objectively.  

Here's Bushman on objectivity:

Quote

We live at a moment in history when the Enlightenment dream of scientific scholarship has been eaten away by doubts about the possibility of scholarly objectivity. A host of thinkers, many of them French, have called into question the very possibility of dispassionate inquiry. They are arguing not merely that objectivity is an impossible achievement for human beings, who can never detach their minds from the rest of their being, but that the pretense of objectivity is an exercise in self-aggrandizement. Objectivity disguises a play for power by those who pretend to the authority of objective scholarship when they are every bit as self-interested in the outcome as any religious apologist. The scientific authorities of an era, according to current theory, claim to speak only for truth against error, when in actuality they stand to benefit by promoting their particular truth and vanquishing all others. No truth, not even the most rigorously scientific, is objective. All truth is colored by personal interest of some sort.

That is harsh criticism of the scientists whom we have all learned to admire, and I, for one, am loath to go all the way with postmodernist thinkers. It is very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship. We all can think of utterly biased and self-serving scholarship that we are sure would not hold up under scrutiny, or history writing that is filled with factual errors. We want to reserve the right to correct this corrupted work in the name of some kind of objective truth.

But if we cannot go all the way with the critics of the Enlightenment, we must at least acknowledge that no scholarship, no truth, exists in a social vacuum. Though it is rarely mentioned in the work itself, all scholarship is tied to a community of some kind and bears the marks of that community’s influence. Scholarship is the product of people who are located in institutions—universities, research institutes, or circles of like-minded thinkers. They publish their work and want to have it read by others. Their reputations, promotions, pay raises, and appointments depend on how that work is received. When they write, they use the language, the mannerisms, the forms of their scholarly community. In taking an intellectual position, they silently, but inevitably, associate themselves with people of a similar outlook. Scholars take pleasure in hearing references to their work at scholarly meetings or seeing it mentioned in publications. They can imagine being part of a distinguished community of learned people whose intelligence and character are admired. In the scholarly work itself, a conclusion is presented as the outcome of careful scrutiny of the facts and rigorous analysis; but the assumptions, the perspective of the work, the fundamental attitude come from some community, from a society with which the scholar is implicitly and probably quite hopefully associating.

Every form of scholarship is rooted in a society, an imagined community of scholars in which the teachers or writers live and move and have their being. We cannot take a position on a scholarly issue without implicitly forming or breaking a social relationship. Everything we write and say links us to other people, with all the tangled consequences for our self-esteem, our personal identities, our hopes and aspirations. There is a social and personal dimension to every form of rational discourse, which means that all beliefs, not merely religious beliefs, are both rational and irrational. We may indeed become persuaded rationally that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century production. There may be hundreds of facts we can invoke to sustain this position. But in making that assertion we are forming and breaking human relationships that unavoidably influence our thinking, just as the memories of a religious upbringing (or of a transforming conversion) coil around the work of the Mormon apologists.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=8

Notice the line about how "Objectivity disguises a play for power", that is, it becomes a claim of immunity from criticism.  If one is objective, applying the tools of scholarship and science to follow the facts where ever they lead, then it follows that the objective scholar is beyond criticism, and that those who disagree are by definition, "not approaching the issue objectively" that is, in the grasp of some ideology of faith that is, again by definition, "not objective" and by definition, wrong.

So what's wrong with just trying to be "objective?"

Quote

No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

Peter Novick “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New,” Sunstone Symposium, 1989, 4 (transcript in my possession).   Bushman say much the same thing in his famous talk on "Faithful History").

If we admit that everyone has an ideology and that objectivity is a "noble dream" (as Peter Novick puts it), or as Bushman notices, "a power play", then the issue involves coming up with a mode of deciding between ideologies that is not completely paradigm-dependent.

And paradigms are defined by the stories we hear, and apply, and repeat as exemplary. 

Do I want to take my example from Exit Narratives, or conversion narratives, or the results of ongoing scholarship quite far advanced from what happens at the initial sprouting of a seed?   Kuhn explained that paradigmatic examples define communities.

Do I take Bokovoy as paradigmatic on the Book of Abraham, or do I get to consider Gee and Tvedtnes and Robert Smith and Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes and others offer?  While I have some questions about the Book of Abraham, from what I have read, there are some very interesting and peculiar ties to the ancient world that to my knowledge, tend not to get mentioned, let alone explained by those who see it as Joseph's imaginative composition, rather than an inspired translation.  In deciding between Bokovoy and Gee, do I decide that Bokovoy is beyond criticism because he followed the facts objectively, and that Gee must be prejudiced and wrong because all he did was get a Ph.D. in Egyptology publish widely, and explore the issue in detail for several decades, which means that he'd only be worth listening to if he were not LDS? 

Given a person's perspective (rather than their claims to being objective), how perceptive are they?

Quote

In The Anatomy of Criticism, Northrop Frye comments that “to defend the right of criticism to exist at all, therefore is to assume that criticism is a structure of thought and knowledge existing in its own right with some measure of independence from the art it deals with."

That is exactly where Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn come it.  Paradigm choice always involves deciding which paradigm is better (which necessarily involves comparison of two or more approaches), always involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" (and these days I cannot help but notice that one of the key diagnostic factors in addiction is an internal, subjective conviction that "sex is my most important need"), and that there is a natural tendency for proponents of different paradigms to employ their own paradigm in that paradigm's defense.  I consider what claims are being made, what is testable? which predictions are most accurate, whose explanations are the most comprehensive and coherent, which is the most fruitful, producing results that would be completely unexpected and unexplained by an opposed perspective, which is the most aesthetically pleasing, and which offers the most future promise in dealing with unresolved issues?So I think there is an urgency to be open about the effects of one's own ideology, not even pretend to "objectivity" and to make a conscious effort to invoke criteria that are not "paradigm dependent," not ideologically saturated.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet . . . there are many intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who who do not think that "the tools of scholarship make an overwhelming case that it was written in the 19th Century."  So unless you are proposing something like "Yeah, but all those guys lack intellectual integrity," your argument doesn't work.  It is not self-evident.  No such showing has been made.

I'm not making an argument--I'm trying to clarify what Bokovoy's point actually was--at least according to my understanding (please read that caveat into everything that follows).

Bokovoy has no desire to disabuse somebody of their religious beliefs if those beliefs help them lead a happy life. Because of that, ironically the details of why he believes what he does on this point might not ever be fully articulated. That said, just because "reasonable minds can disagree" on something doesn't mean that some of those reasonable minds are looking at the evidence through the eyes of an impartial juror and other minds are looking at it through the eyes of a one-sided advocate.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, what I said before bears repetition: "The tools of scholarship" can only take us so far.  But to suggest that these tools cannot be used at all to advance religious ideas is . . . weird.

Yea, that idea is pretty weird. But that idea isn't what Bokovoy believes--it is a strawman.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"The tools of scholarship" can't tell us if God exists.

If God actually existed and interacted with observable reality, of course the tools of scholarship could tell us if God exists. As it is, scholarship can't tell us if God exists for the same reason it can't tell us that leprechauns exist. Maybe He does (and they do), but as it is, there just isn't evidence. But in principle, God (and leprechauns) could manifest themselves.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That said, I do need to listen to the interview.  I'll do it.

You'll enjoy it--Bokovoy is an interesting and articulate fellow with an incredibly good nature.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You just barely said: "He isn't saying that as an a priori rule you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief."  Now you are saying that "it doesn't work."

You missed the point. When Bokovoy says "it doesn't work" in this context he isn't saying that you aren't allowed to use the tools of scholarship to defend religious belief. He is saying if you apply the tools of scholarship to this specific question, it isn't going to help the apologists because the evidence points in the other direction. Picking and choosing bits of evidence to submit to academic scrutiny because they help support your position isn't good scholarship and isn't honest. And yes, he does accuse specific apologists of being dishonest in this regard.

That's my take, at least. I've also heard him say that scholarship is designed to find the most likely explanation of things, and thus necessarily rules out miracles because by definition, miracles are the least likely explanation of something--that is what makes them miraculous. If the evidence indicates that the faithful explanation of any phenomenon really was plausible, then by definition it wouldn't be miraculous and hence would be within the purview of scholarship.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I follow.  Are you presenting an Argument from Authority here?  It sounds like it.

No. A common tactic to avoid the arguments of apostates is to say they aren't made in good faith, that the person didn't study apologetic arguments enough, that the apostate lacks good will, etc. For example, on the first page of this thread, Bokovoy is explained away with comments like, "these are only problematic to the closed-minded," "he's just disparaging all religious thinking more or less," "People end up giving up everything over small potatoes stuff."

My point here is that Bokovoy shouldn't be dismissed as just another apologist-gone-apostate in the vein of Kevin Graham, Consig, Bill Reel, or Kerry Shirts. Compared to a run-of-the-mill apostate such as yours truly, Bokovoy is much smarter, has put in exponentially more time into studying and thinking about the issues, has dedicated his life to building up and defending faith, is infinitely more charitable, has superlative training in world-class scholarship, and actually loves the church.

He says in his Mormon Stories interview, "I think the Book of Mormon is one of the most inspired books ever written. I think it has an inspired, apocalyptic message that is essential for Americans, specifically, to embrace. When the Book of Mormon is read critically and carefully, and against the grain, some really important themes start to emerge....ultimately this idea of creating a society like the one Jesus helps to create where we eliminate -isms and people start to work together to eradicate poverty and create heaven on earth--that is literally what the Nephite society does. So its a blueprint in many ways to accomplish those things. I love the Book of Mormon. There is a deep power in that text."

The Journal of Biblical Literature is by far the most prestigious academic journal on the Bible, and exactly one Mormon has ever been published there.

Anyway, my point is that Bokovoy shouldn't be dismissed as yet another malcontent. He is unique.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

No offense, but if you're viewing it all through Fowler's faith stages that's completely implausible as Fowler's work is just junk psychology and pseudo-science at best. 

Personally, I don't take faith stages seriously and was talking about them with tongue in cheek. Faith stages and other similar paradigms are frequently used around here to dismiss people who ditched the church as not having had the faith or patience required to work through the issues and obtain the glory of the sophisticated faithful.

I disregard that attack in general, but find it especially inapplicable to Bokovoy. That's my point.