Utah Lighthouse Ministry shutting down

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If a religion actually teaches "well this is just what God says so do it" then I agree with you.  I appreciate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't espouse that but there are probably some out there that do.  

Sorry I disagree. There certainly is a strong message of obey and follow the leaders.  Open deviation and opposition is not welcome.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I also acknowledge that there are many active and believing members who's beliefs towards the lgbtq community match yours (so presumably have the same level of spiritual maturity), but who have not felt the need to put aside their faith to make that "positive development".  

I did not "put aside" my faith (actually a poor terminology of what actually happened) to make this positive development.  My faith dissolved for other reasons.  Looking at social issues and modifying my views on some came much later.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry I disagree. There certainly is a strong message of obey and follow the leaders.  Open deviation and opposition is not welcome.

 

Yes there is, but there is also a strong message of personal revelation.

Quote

I did not "put aside" my faith (actually a poor terminology of what actually happened) to make this positive development.  My faith dissolved for other reasons.  Looking at social issues and modifying my views on some came much later.

I was quoting you when I used that term, I meant no disrespect by using it.  You said: "Once I put aside my faith I started examining that position from a more rational view point other than God says so."

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by bluebell

[california boy]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is a difference between believing that God exists and believing that you have to follow Him.  I know many people who believe that God exists but who don't ever seek His will on anything, give no thought to Him ever, have no relationship with Him, and who assume that whatever they want to do, God is fine with it.

I would consider those people to be living secular lives, regardless of their claim of belief.  

Certainly there is a spectrum of how a person interacts with God.  That has always been the case even in the 1950's.  While what you are describing is certain true, I don't think that a broad brush can be painted that people are leaving organized religion so therefore, people no longer have any spirituality in their lives.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes there is, but there is also a strong message of personal revelation.

As long as it agrees with the leadership.  Try saying you received personal revelation contradicts then and promoting it and see what happens.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was quoting you when I used that term, I meant no disrespect by using it.  You said: "Once I put aside my faith I started examining that position from a more rational view point other than God says so."

 

 

Ah ok.  Fair enough.  My own words. 😀

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sorry I disagree. There certainly is a strong message of obey and follow the leaders.  Open deviation and opposition is not welcome.

 

I think by introducing the word "open" here, you change the terms of the discussion.  There is a world of difference between a deviation of personal belief that is taught in the home (of which I have a handful, and of which I have taught my children), and open deviation that is taught in Sunday School.  I have never been asked about those idiosyncratic personal beliefs in a temple recommend interview.  As long as I believe the core teaching (God, Jesus, Restoration, etc.), I remain a member in good standing.  

[Analytics]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

We've been on the world stage, in academia ever since the Oxford Movement. We have many published and accredited Mormon scholars competent in their various fields. Not many are fit to tie Hugh Nibley's intellectual shoes.

It reminds me of that anti-Mormon rag that said:

Quote

In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place. 

There are serious problems involved in this kind of methodology. The various religious communities from whose documents Nibley draws his material had mutually exclusive beliefs in many areas. By removing their ideas from their own context (thus rendering them invalid) and joining them with ideas from other communities--similarly removed from their own context--Nibley creates an artificial synthesis that never in reality existed. The result would be unacceptable and no doubt unrecognizable to any of the original groups. 

(see the full article by Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies)

On 11/28/2022 at 7:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

He was a beacon for other Mormon scholars....

It reminds me of Professor David P. Wright, who told me his original career ambition was to become another Hugh Nibley. As he studied, his beliefs evolved. Eventually, the BYU administration interrogated him about his personal beliefs, and despite the fact that he kept his personal beliefs private, BYU fired him for not being orthodox enough. Then he got excommunicated for his academic writings. (see CHAPTER 23 (mormon-alliance.org)) That turned out to be a good thing, and he landed on his feet teaching the Hebrew Bible at the Ph.D. level at the most prestigious Jewish university in the country. 

Professor Wright has written a few papers that conclusively prove the Book of Mormon is of modern origin (e.g. Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon), and FARMS either ignored them or wrote reviews that essentially used Jedi mind tricks to mislead the reader about the content, strength, and implications of Wright's arguments (these aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. Move along). As an example, see Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (byu.edu). 

On 11/28/2022 at 7:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

The CES Letter was my example of modern day "scholarly" criticism we contend with now-a-days.

Here is the hard truth. Mormonism's truth claims aren't serious scholarly questions. 

It reminds me of the path of another apologist budding scholar who used to participate in this forum. When he was accepted into an extremely selective Ph.D. program, a BYU professor told him: 

“David, you may wish to rethink going to Brandeis. At Brandeis, you’ll be studying with an excommunicated Latter-day Saint, the only non-Jew Brandeis has ever had as a full-time faculty member in their Near Eastern and Judaic Studies program. He would never be unkind to you, but the fact that he teaches there is indication of how critical their program in Hebrew Bible must be, and as a believing Latter-day Saint, you simply won’t feel comfortable with the academic material you’ll be forced to study.”

Another BYU professor told him:

“I think it’s wonderful that you’re going to Brandeis. But don’t focus on Bible. Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible."

If you can't guess how this turns out, please read the next chapters here:

Critical Studies Versus Apologetics: My Own Personal Journey | Rev. David Bokovoy (patheos.com)

(Bokovoy has talked a lot since then on various podcasts you can easily find, and is a delightful guy to listen to)

Anyway, you are free to believe whatever you want about the status of the Mormon/anti-Mormon debate, but you may want to dial down the hubris with claims that serious scholars who have looked at the issues are all on the believing side. The truth is that most serious scholars who have looked at these issues, whether members of the Church or not, don't talk about them. It isn't a serious conversation. 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Analytics

[Harry T. Clark]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As long as it agrees with the leadership.  Try saying you received personal revelation contradicts then and promoting it and see what happens.

Ah ok.  Fair enough.  My own words. 😀

I have to agree that contradictory personal revelation to what the brethren want would be quickly put down if one were to gain a following.  Denver Snuffer comes to mind.  Also, throughout the early history, Joseph Smith was challenged by those who claimed revelation for a different direction for the church.  Joseph put the usurpers down.  See D&C 28

[juliann]

On 11/30/2022 at 12:00 AM, Derl Sanderson said:

In what way has it been demonstrated that the faith claims of the Church cannot withstand scholarly criticism? Has it been shown that there is no intellectual defense of the Church's claims or that critics have had no answers from credentialed scholars who support and believe those faith claims?

And what constitutes a "successful critic" anyway? By what standard do we assess the critic's success or failure? Are there some examples of successful critics you could give us for context?

I am fairly conversant with the Tanners' works and the newsletters produced by Utah Lighthouse Ministry. In following their efforts for many years, I noted that early on, they took extreme pleasure in openly challenging Church leaders to answer their criticisms. When no answer was forthcoming, the Tanners took it as evidence that they could not be answered. It might have been that the ministry of Church leaders required their attention be given to more weighty issues, but that's the topic of a different discussion. For years the Tanners were quite self-satisfied in this apparent victory over the Deceived Deceivers in LDS leadership, but then a funny thing happened. In the 1980's, LDS scholars began to take notice of the Tanners' work and to seriously engage it, with results that were not quite so satisfying to the Lighthouse keepers. The tone of their newsletter turned from self-congratulatory gloating to one of whining about being attacked and persecuted. Works of the Tanners and their fellow travelers were quite often and very seriously engaged in the old FARMS Review where the unassailable criticisms turned out to be rather assailable after all. This is probably the "great opposition" they faced that you sympathetically referred to earlier.

And that culminated in her suing FAIR because of a spoof website. The first judge threw it out on summary judgment so she went to 10th Circuit. Where she lost resoundingly. She not only earned the admiration of all anti-Mormons, but also those like the Ralph Nadar organization who wanted the 10th Circuit to close the donut hole they lived in because of the lack of protection in their jurisdiction for what she thought she could get away with.  

So I am happy to report that Tanner not only has her name enshrined in anti-Mormonism, but also in case law that now protects citizens from predators like her. 

[Eschaton]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It reminds me of that anti-Mormon rag that said:

(see the full article by Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies)

It reminds me of Professor David P. Wright, who told me his original career ambition was to become another Hugh Nibley. As he studied, his beliefs evolved. Eventually, the BYU administration interrogated him about his personal beliefs, and despite the fact that he kept his personal beliefs private, BYU fired him for not being orthodox enough. Then he got excommunicated for his academic writings. (see CHAPTER 23 (mormon-alliance.org)) That turned out to be a good thing, and he landed on his feet teaching the Hebrew Bible at the Ph.D. level at the most prestigious Jewish university in the country. 

Professor Wright has written a few papers that conclusively prove the Book of Mormon is of modern origin (e.g. Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon), and FARMS either ignored them or wrote reviews that essentially used Jedi mind tricks to mislead the reader about the content, strength, and implications of Wright's arguments (these aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. Move along). As an example, see Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (byu.edu). 

Here is the hard truth. Mormonism's truth claims aren't serious scholarly questions. 

It reminds me of the path of another apologist budding scholar who used to participate in this forum. When he was accepted into an extremely selective Ph.D. program, a BYU professor told him: 

“David, you may wish to rethink going to Brandeis. At Brandeis, you’ll be studying with an excommunicated Latter-day Saint, the only non-Jew Brandeis has ever had as a full-time faculty member in their Near Eastern and Judaic Studies program. He would never be unkind to you, but the fact that he teaches there is indication of how critical their program in Hebrew Bible must be, and as a believing Latter-day Saint, you simply won’t feel comfortable with the academic material you’ll be forced to study.”

Another BYU professor told him:

“I think it’s wonderful that you’re going to Brandeis. But don’t focus on Bible. Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible."

If you can't guess how this turns out, please read the next chapters here:

Critical Studies Versus Apologetics: My Own Personal Journey | Rev. David Bokovoy (patheos.com)

(He's talked a lot since then on various pod casts you can easily find)

Anyway, you are free to believe whatever you want about the status of the Mormon/anti-Mormon debate, but you may want to dial down the hubris with claims that serious scholars who have looked at the issues are all on the believing side. The truth is that most serious scholars who have looked at these issues, whether members of the Church or not, don't talk about them. It isn't a serious conversation. 

 

That's very interesting. On the one hand "truth claims" of any religion are not the subject of academic debate. Apologists and their critics debate these issues, but critical scholars do not (not in their capacity as scholars, at least).

However I can see how academic Biblical studies might threaten certain forms of faith. For example if your religious faith depends on the idea that the Book of Mormon is not just scripture but also has historicity, then your faith will likely be destroyed or at least much altered by studying academic Biblical scholarship (historical criticism/textual criticism of either the Hebrew Bible or New Testament).  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As long as it agrees with the leadership.  Try saying you received personal revelation contradicts then and promoting it and see what happens.

If you 1) try to teach your personal revelation over the pulpit, in church classes, or to advocate publicly that they are binding on everyone and/or 2) suggest that personal revelation has told you that Jesus isn't the Christ, that there is no need for priesthood to act in the name of God, that everyone needs to practice plural marriage, etc., then yes, you'll run into pushback. 

But otherwise, you'll be fine with privately holding beliefs or receiving personal revelation that contradicts the church's official teachings.  Depending on what it is, you may not be able to get a temple recommend (if the revelation says that drinking alcohol is great, for example, or that tithing isn't required...), but you'll still be welcome at church and (unless we are talking about serious sins like adultery or things that are also illegal), you'll remain a member in good standing even.  

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

However I can see how academic Biblical studies might threaten certain forms of faith. For example if your religious faith depends on the idea that the Book of Mormon is not just scripture but also has historicity, then your faith will likely be destroyed or at least much altered by studying academic Biblical scholarship (historical criticism/textual criticism of either the Hebrew Bible or New Testament).  

There are a ton of bible scholars (with PHDs in every bible discipline under the sun), that also believe in the historicity of the BOM.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I have to agree that contradictory personal revelation to what the brethren want would be quickly put down if one were to gain a following.  Denver Snuffer comes to mind.  Also, throughout the early history, Joseph Smith was challenged by those who claimed revelation for a different direction for the church.  Joseph put the usurpers down.  See D&C 28

Correct.  This is why I think to argue that personal revelation is a hallmark of the church as least as far as what the leaders teach is nonsense.  I agree that the Church leaders do teach personal revelation for calling we have, for things on our personal life, for stewardship issues.  But not anything that disputes what the top leadership outlines and doctrine and policy.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think by introducing the word "open" here, you change the terms of the discussion. 

So sure I can have a personal revelation that the leaders are wrong but I just cannot talk about it.  What good is tht?  How does that help?  

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

There is a world of difference between a deviation of personal belief that is taught in the home (of which I have a handful, and of which I have taught my children), and open deviation that is taught in Sunday School.  I have never been asked about those idiosyncratic personal beliefs in a temple recommend interview.  As long as I believe the core teaching (God, Jesus, Restoration, etc.), I remain a member in good standing.  

Interesting.  When I was on my way out I had two temple recommend interview cycles with a bishop and SP.  At that time I openly questioned the core teachings you mention but was keeping the rules.  They gave me a temple recommend in both cases. I was shocked really.

 

But again if you have something you think God is telling you the leader are wrong about it is meaningless unless you can talk about it it more than just to yourself or family.  And the culture that POGI talks about goes on and on.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you 1) try to teach your personal revelation over the pulpit, in church classes, or to advocate publicly that they are binding on everyone and/or 2) suggest that personal revelation has told you that Jesus isn't the Christ, that there is no need for priesthood to act in the name of God, that everyone needs to practice plural marriage, etc., then yes, you'll run into pushback. 

 

Those are extreme examples.  How about if you had openly opposed the Nov 2015 policy?  What if you advocate for non sicipline of homsexual married members?  What if you advocate for open financials?

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But otherwise, you'll be fine with privately holding beliefs or receiving personal revelation that contradicts the church's official teachings.  Depending on what it is, you may not be able to get a temple recommend (if the revelation says that drinking alcohol is great, for example, or that tithing isn't required...), but you'll still be welcome at church and (unless we are talking about serious sins like adultery or things that are also illegal), you'll remain a member in good standing even.  

as I noted what good is a personal revelation that contradicts the leaders if you have to keep it to yourself?  If you had a personal revelation that what the Church did in CA over Prop 8 was wrong and you were open about it what would happen?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

Those are extreme examples.  How about if you had openly opposed the Nov 2015 policy?  What if you advocate for non sicipline of homsexual married members?  What if you advocate for open financials?

as I noted what good is a personal revelation that contradicts the leaders if you have to keep it to yourself?  If you had a personal revelation that what the Church did in CA over Prop 8 was wrong and you were open about it what would happen?

It would depend on what you mean by openly.

When I say privately I don't mean in secret.  I mean that you aren't publicly advocating against the church.  I know members in good standing, with temple recommends, serving in leadership callings in the church, who were open about their opposition to the Nov. 2015 policy.  Same for their support of SSM. 

But they were never in opposition to the prophet or the church, so that's the difference.

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would depend on what you mean by openly.

I meant talking about it. With member you know.  At church. In sunday school or relief society.  

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I say privately I don't mean in secret.  I mean that you aren't publicly advocating against the church.  I know members in good standing, with temple recommends, serving in leadership callings in the church, who were open about their opposition to the Nov. 2015 policy.  Same for their support of SSM. 

But they were never in opposition to the prophet or the church, so that's the difference.

 

Opposing the Nov 2015 policy was opposing the prophet and leaders. The current president/prophet claimed both its institution and negations was revelation.  Supporting SSM at least at points in the past would have been opposing the prophet. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I meant talking about it. With member you know.  At church. In sunday school or relief society.  

Opposing the Nov 2015 policy was opposing the prophet and leaders. The current president/prophet claimed both its institution and negations was revelation.  Supporting SSM at least at points in the past would have been opposing the prophet. 

These people obviously talked about their disagreement, otherwise I wouldn't know about it.

I guess I can see how someone might view disagreeing with someone to be the same as opposing them, but I do not think that definition makes very much sense.  I disagree with my husband about quite a few things (politics being one of them) for example, but I am never in opposition to him. 

Are you in opposition to everyone you disagree with?

The people that I know who disagreed with the prophet on the Nov policy were never in opposition to the prophet.

Edited December 1, 2022 by bluebell

[Stormin' Mormon]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So sure I can have a personal revelation that the leaders are wrong but I just cannot talk about it.  What good is tht?  How does that help?  

 

[emphasis added by me]

That's not what I said.

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There are a ton of bible scholars (with PHDs in every bible discipline under the sun), that also believe in the historicity of the BOM.

Which scholars are you thinking of here? 

[Arthur Vandelay]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes there is, but there is also a strong message of personal revelation.

Indeed.  But President Packer did warn us that if our personal revelation differs from our priesthood leaders', we are probably being misled.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

[emphasis added by me]

That's not what I said.

Feel free to clarify.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

These people obviously talked about their disagreement, otherwise I wouldn't know about it.

I guess I can see how someone might view disagreeing with someone to be the same as opposing them, but I do not think that definition makes very much sense.  I disagree with my husband about quite a few things (politics being one of them) for example, but I am never in opposition to him. 

Are you in opposition to everyone you disagree with?

The people that I know who disagreed with the prophet on the Nov policy were never in opposition to the prophet.

Disagreeing is opposing at least on the topic of disagreement don't you think?

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Which scholars are you thinking of here? 

Dr. Joshua Matsen--PhD student in Religions of Western Antiquity at Florida State University; Bachelor’s Degree in Ancient Near Eastern Studies with University Honors from Brigham Young University in 2013; Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Trinity Western University, where he assisted in authoring publications facilitated by the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute

Dr. Joshua Sears--MA from The Ohio State University and a PhD in Hebrew Bible at The University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Aaron Schade--Codirector of the Khirbat Ataruz Excavation in Ataruz, Jordan.; Completed his graduate studies at the University of Toronto in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations

Dr. Jan Martin--PhD: University of York, UK: Sixteenth-century English Bible Translation; focus on early English reformers

Dr. S. Michael Wilcox--PhD from the University of Colorado but I'm not sure what in

Dr. Terry Ball--BS in botany and education, an MA in ancient Near Eastern studies, and a PhD in archaeobotany with an emphasis in the ancient Near East

Dr. Kerry Muhlestein--M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology

Dr. Jason R. Combs--master's degrees in biblical studies from Yale Divinity School and in classics from Columbia University; PhD in religious studies with an emphasis on the history of early Christianity from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Lincoln Bluemell--BA with honors in classical and early Christian studies from the University of Calgary; an MA from the University of Calgary in religious studies (ancient Christianity); an MSt from Oxford (Christ Church) in Jewish studies; and a PhD from the University of Toronto in religious studies (early Christianity)

Dr. Eric D. Huntsman--B.A. in Classical Greek and Latin from Brigham Young University; M.A. Ancient History, University of Pennsylvania; and Ph.D. Ancient History, University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Jared W. Ludlow--Master's degree from the University of California at Berkeley in Biblical Hebrew, and his PhD in Near Eastern Religions from UC-Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union

Dr Krystal VL Pierce--PhD in Egyptian Archaeology and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from UCLA and an MA and BA in Near Eastern Studies from UC Berkeley.

Dr. Camille Fronk Olson--MA in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and a PhD in the sociology of the Middle East from BYU

Dr. Daniel C Peterson--PhD, University of California at Los Angeles, not sure what in but he taught Islamic studies and Arabic and founded the BYU's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative

Dr. Gaye Strathearn--BA and MA in Near Eastern studies from BYU (1990 and 1992), and a PhD in religion (New Testament) from the Claremont Graduate University

Dr. Dana M. Pike--BS in Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology from Brigham Young University (1978), and his PhD in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern studies from the University of Pennsylvania

Dr. George Pierce--B.A. in History from Clearwater Christian College, an MSc in Archaeological Information Systems the University of York, an MA in Biblical Studies (Archaeology concentration) from Wheaton College, and a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Matthew Grey--B.A. in Near Eastern studies (1999–2003). Following his undergraduate work, he received an M.A. in archaeology and the history of antiquity from Andrews University (2003–2005), an M.St. in Jewish studies (with an emphasis on Judaism in the Greco-Roman world) from the University of Oxford (2005–2006), and a Ph.D. in ancient Mediterranean religions (with a major emphasis on archaeology and the history of early Judaism and a minor emphasis on New Testament studies) from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Daniel L Belnap--MA in ancient Near Eastern studies from BYU; an MA and a PhD in Northwest Semitics from the University of Chicago

Dr. Matthew L Bowen--PhD in Biblical Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC

Dr. Andrew Skinner--MA degree from the Iliff School of Theology in Jewish studies and a ThM degree from Harvard in biblical Hebrew. PhD from the University of Denver in Near Eastern and European history specializing in Judaism

Dr. Jeffry R Chadwick--Ph.D. at the University of Utah Middle East Center in Archaeology and Anthropology, specializing in the archaeology of the Land of Israel, with a minor in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Aramaic languages

Dr. Jennifer C Lane--Ph.D. in religion with an emphasis in history of Christianity from Claremont Graduate University

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Disagreeing is opposing at least on the topic of disagreement don't you think?

No, I've explained why I don't see disagreeing as being the same as opposing.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Arthur Vandelay said:

Indeed.  But President Packer did warn us that if our personal revelation differs from our priesthood leaders', we are probably being misled.

I'd need a quote to be able to respond.