Utah Lighthouse Ministry shutting down

[Stormin' Mormon]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to clarify.

Your first claim: "Open deviation" is frowned upon.

Your follow up claim was then: "cannot talk about personal revelation" that Church leaders are wrong.  But I had taken no stance on the topic of revelation that is counter to Church leaders, only on deviation in belief.  Nor was I claiming that such deviance couldn't be talked about at all, only that it can't be talked about in open forums (ie--at Church meetings, over the pulpit, etc). 

 

[Derl Sanderson]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Did not know this. Thank you very much, juliann.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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. 

There are really fundamental problems that haven't gotten much recognition (or discussion). Consider one of the biggest issues with the Book of Mormon:

Mormonism claims that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text. At the same time, the Book of Mormon is a modern text, with a fairly well defined history. This means that the Book of Mormon is, fundamentally, no different (from an academic perspective) from, say, the King James translation of the Bible. What does this mean? It means that Skousen's massive work on the manuscript history of the Book of Mormon is, from an academic perspective, no different (and no more interesting) than the manuscript history of the King James translation of the Bible (which is to say, it isn't interesting at all). The manuscript history of the Book of Mormon (an attempt to identify the original text given to Joseph Smith) is of interest primarily as a religious question, not an academic one. But this illustrates the problem of the gap between academic studies and religious ones in the case of Mormonism.

[Eschaton]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Thinking about the piece of advice I was quoting (“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."), it looks like only a few of these have the kind of degree that was mentioned:

 

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. 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. 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 [note: Wheaton is quite conservative and the focus is archeology, so perhaps less relevant?]  College, and a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California, Los Angeles

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

 

Do you maintain a list of LDS scholars? Do we know what their views are on Book of Mormon historicity? Maybe that's a silly question. I only googled two of the above and both are at BYU, I don't know about the rest. 

[Pyreaux]

4 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Thinking about the piece of advice I was quoting (“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."), it looks like only a few of these have the kind of degree that was mentioned:

Do you mean who "Analytics was quoting"?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Thinking about the piece of advice I was quoting (“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."), it looks like only a few of these have the kind of degree that was mentioned:

 

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. 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. 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 [note: Wheaton is quite conservative and the focus is archeology, so perhaps less relevant?]  College, and a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California, Los Angeles

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

 

Do you maintain a list of LDS scholars? Do we know what their views are on Book of Mormon historicity? Maybe that's a silly question. I only googled two of the above and both are at BYU, I don't know about the rest. 

These are all scholars that have been on the Follow Him podcast this year, discussing the OT. Each episode discusses the come follow him curriculum for that week, and also usually spends a few minutes going over the scholar’s educational background and testimony of the church.

You can listen to the podcasts on YouTube or Followhim.co (where you can find transcripts of each episode as well). 

[Eschaton]

2 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Do you mean who "Analytics was quoting"?

Yes, I think I meant to type "that was quoted"

[Eschaton]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

These are all scholars that have been on the Follow Him podcast this year, discussing the OT. Each episode discusses the come follow him curriculum for that week, and also usually spends a few minutes going over the scholar’s educational background and testimony of the church.

You can listen to the podcasts on YouTube or Followhim.co (where you can find transcripts of each episode as well). 

Thank you!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

I know you don't think so so I guess we have to disagree.  Also I think disagreeing with your spouse on politics is very different from disagreeing with policy that the prophet declares to be revelation.  The first I agree is not opposing. The latter seems like you are opposing at least on that point.  Was President Nelson correct or not about the Nov 2015 policy implementation  being revelations well as the revocation of it?  Did you support the policy or disagree/oppose it.  If disagree did you  think that was personal revelation?  Was the prophet wrong calling both revelation?  Do you see how this becomes problematic?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Your first claim: "Open deviation" is frowned upon.

Your follow up claim was then: "cannot talk about personal revelation" that Church leaders are wrong.  But I had taken no stance on the topic of revelation that is counter to Church leaders, only on deviation in belief.  Nor was I claiming that such deviance couldn't be talked about at all, only that it can't be talked about in open forums (ie--at Church meetings, over the pulpit, etc). 

 

Yes I understood that.  Again, if you cannot talk openly about your personal revelation that may be different than the Church leaders and any open setting like a church meeting then what good is it? Why can't we be open and say in a priesthood meeting "You know I have pondered and prayed over x, y or z and have some concerns. I would like to share them and here what others think."  Seems like this could be a healthy process.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The latter seems like you are opposing at least on that point.

What is it that makes it opposing and not just disagreeing in your opinion?

Quote

Was President Nelson correct or not about the Nov 2015 policy implementation  being revelations well as the revocation of it?  Was the prophet wrong calling both revelation?

I honestly have no idea.  I'm pretty neutral on that as I could see the reasons for the Nov policy (and they seemed legitimate to me) but I also could understand why it upset some people (and there was some implementation of it that I didn't agree with).  I have spent zero time trying to get God's opinion on the matter because it's a non-issue for me and there hasn't been a need for me to declare it one way or the other.

I'm inclined to believe that Pres. Nelson believed it was revelation, I do not believe that he is a liar.

Quote

Did you support the policy or disagree/oppose it.  If disagree did you  think that was personal revelation?    Do you see how this becomes problematic?

None of my thoughts or opinions about the policy have come from revelation.  As I said, I never sought God's will on the matter.  They've been strictly my own.

[juliann]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

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."

 

 

And yet Claremont Graduate University initiated their Mormon Studies program because of the Mormon students they had encountered. That would be a rather odd thing to do if all those students were nonbelievers. 
 

In general, it’s a really dopey thing to say that studying the Bible turns everyone into nonbelievers merely by naming a couple of scholars. 

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

And yet Claremont Graduate University initiated their Mormon Studies program because of the Mormon students they had encountered. That would be a rather odd thing to do if all those students were nonbelievers. 

Keeping my comment in context, what the BYU professors allegedly told Dr. Bokovoy happened on the BYU campus.

15 hours ago, juliann said:

In general, it’s a really dopey thing to say that studying the Bible turns everyone into nonbelievers merely by naming a couple of scholars. 

Keeping it in context, two BYU professors told a bright student not to study the Bible at the Ph.D. level because by doing so, he'd probably lose his testimony.

Given subsequent events, do you think they gave him bad advice? 

21 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Thinking about the piece of advice I was quoting (“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."), it looks like only a few of these have the kind of degree that was mentioned:

 

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. 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. 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 [note: Wheaton is quite conservative and the focus is archeology, so perhaps less relevant?]  College, and a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California, Los Angeles

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

 

Do you maintain a list of LDS scholars? Do we know what their views are on Book of Mormon historicity? Maybe that's a silly question. I only googled two of the above and both are at BYU, I don't know about the rest. 

And we could add David Bokovoy to the list. He hasn't been excommunicated, has he? His bio at FAR says:

David Bokovoy holds a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East from Brandeis University. In addition to his work in Mormon studies, David has published articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature and Vetus Testamentum.  His dissertation is entitled “Yahweh as a Sexual Deity in J’s Prehistory.” A former LDS Chaplain at Harvard University, Dr. Bokovoy has taught for many years in the Church’s Seminaries and Institute program.  He is the father of four children and is married to the former Carolyn Bird.

David Bokovoy - FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org)

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

I know you don't think so so I guess we have to disagree.  ...

Which means, also, that you oppose Bluebell, yeah?    (Sorry.   Couldn't resist!   Just wanted to get that out there.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming, already in progress.)

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Thinking about the piece of advice I was quoting (“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."), it looks like only a few of these have the kind of degree that was mentioned:

And we could add David Bokovoy to the list. He hasn't been excommunicated, has he? His bio at FAR says:

David Bokovoy holds a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East from Brandeis University. In addition to his work in Mormon studies, David has published articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature and Vetus Testamentum.  His dissertation is entitled “Yahweh as a Sexual Deity in J’s Prehistory.” A former LDS Chaplain at Harvard University, Dr. Bokovoy has taught for many years in the Church’s Seminaries and Institute program.  He is the father of four children and is married to the former Carolyn Bird.

David Bokovoy - FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org)

From David in June 2021 (emphases added) :

Quote

Well, that was interesting.  Following my last post, which expressed some public concerns regarding the recent Interpreter article addressing the Documentary Hypothesis, the editors decided to republish an essay I wrote over a decade ago on temple imagery in Jacob’s Book of Mormon sermons.

I find this interesting because the article was written over a decade ago, and first published in a book dedicated to Mormon studies researcher Matt Brown in 2014, i.e. seven years ago, and I’ve gone through some deep, personal changes since that time.  But I also find this interesting because I was not contacted by anyone from Interpreter regarding republishing the piece, or whether or not ten years later, I would like to add or change anything to the essay prior to republication.

If I had been asked, I would not have given my permission, which is probably why the editors did not contact me.  And if the piece were to reappear in print, I would want to add a new introduction or an addendum to the article.  I wish to state publicly, therefore, that I do not agree with the editors’ decision to publish the piece without seeking my input and minus an addendum that reflects my current views on the essay.  It should have also included an updated biography and picture that reflect my current life and position so that there was no confusion.
...

My first publication was twenty-one years ago with the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies through the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS).   That article was followed by many others, and even a book co-authored with famous Mormon apologist John Tvedtnes.  I traveled as a speaker for the Know Your Religion circuit, and taught annual adult classes for BYU’s Education Week.  I taught thousands of students about interesting connections between the Book of Mormon, LDS temple worship, and the ancient world.

The year is now 2021, and I no longer attend the LDS Church, and I have been quite vocal on occasion sharing my conviction that despite its power and beauty, the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text.

FWIW.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From David in June 2021 (emphases added) :

FWIW.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep. 

My point is that everyone is on their own journey, and you can't understand the nuances or even existence of somebody's testimony by merely looking at what Church they belong to.

An interesting story for purposes of triangulation is that of Bart Ehrman. In the first chapter of his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Professor Ehrman talks about his own life story. He was born into a somewhat nominal episcopalian religious household, but then at the age of 15 became an enthusiastic fundamentalist born-again Christian. His first college was the ultra-conservative Moody Bible Institute. He wanted to keep studying, and wanted an education that would open doors. Against the advice of his professors at Moody, he continued his education at a less conservative Evangelical Christian school, Weaton College. And against the advice of his professors at Wheaton, he finished his education at Princeton Theological Seminary. While his studies of the Bible originally made him a more devout fundamentalist Christian and a more formidable Christian apologist, studying at the highest levels eventually led him to being an agnostic without a belief in "God". (I'd call that an atheist, but he calls himself an agnostic)

For Ehrman, the dogma he had tangled up in his mind was the belief that the original autographs of the Bible were inspired and inerrant. Mormons have their own dogmas. Despite the differences in religions and dogmas, the underlying arch of the story is the basically the same for Bokovoy and Ehrman:

• Normal kid who felt he was "missing" something in life
• Met somebody who was religious and became converted
• Got really serious about religion
• Used their intellects to learn more and become a celebrated apologist
• Study at highest levels
• Nuanced beliefs
• Foundation evaporates
• Beliefs crumble

Quoting Ehrman from Chapter 1 of Misquoting Jesus about Princeton:

Quote

 

I found these classes to be a challenge, both academically and personally. The academic challenge was completely welcome, but the personal challenges that I faced were emotionally rather trying. As I've indicated, already at Wheaton I'd begun to question some of the foundational aspects of my commitment to the Bible as the inerrant word of God. That commitment came under serious assault in my detailed studies at Princeton. I resisted any temptation to change my views, and found a number of friends who like me came from conservative evangelical schools and were trying to 'keep the faith', a funny way of putting it since we were, after all, in a Christian divinity program. 

But my studies started catching up with me...

 

Different doctrinal peculiarities. Same mental and psychological dynamics. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Keeping my comment in context, what the BYU professors allegedly told Dr. Bokovoy happened on the BYU campus.

Keeping it in context, two BYU professors told a bright student not to study the Bible at the Ph.D. level because by doing so, he'd probably lose his testimony.

Given subsequent events, do you think they gave him bad advice? 

 

Um, do you not consider BYU professors scholars?? Maybe names would be important? Like I said...a couple of scholars...

And yes, it is dopey. There was some eagerness to get students into outside colleges. BYU hired one of the CGU grads that was there when I was. There will always be holdovers from another era when there was fear of getting outside information but you don't give enough context and only offer selected anecdotes that suit your narrative.

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Um, do you not consider BYU professors scholars??

Of course I do. That is my point.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Maybe names would be important? Like I said...a couple of scholars...

And yes, it is dopey. There was some eagerness to get students into outside colleges. BYU hired one of the CGU grads that was there when I was. There will always be holdovers from another era when there was fear of getting outside information but you don't give enough context and only offer selected anecdotes that suit your narrative.

Bokovoy wasn't told to avoid "outside information." Did you read the post you are responding to? Bokovoy claims he was told, “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."

Is it possible to become a world class expert on the textual criticism of the Bible and retain your testimony of Mormonism? (or of Fundamental Christianity, or JWism, or whatever else?) Yes. Despite the quotes from Bokovoy and Ehrman that I've shared, I personally think it's impossible to overestimate the ability of humans to believe what they want to believe.

Putting all this in the context of this thread, @Pyreaux was arguing early that "we are the scholarly now, we have the PHDs, we embrace new discoveries that neo-critics are unequipped to handle."

I was just attempting to show him a glimpse of how non-believers see the state of the debate.

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

Of course I do. That is my point.

Bokovoy wasn't told to avoid "outside information." Did you read the post you are responding to? Bokovoy claims he was told, “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."

Is it possible to become a world class expert on the textual criticism of the Bible and retain your testimony of Mormonism? (or of Fundamental Christianity, or JWism, or whatever else?) Yes. Despite the quotes from Bokovoy and Ehrman that I've shared, I personally think it's impossible to overestimate the ability of humans to believe what they want to believe.

Putting all this in the context of this thread, @Pyreaux was arguing early that "we are the scholarly now, we have the PHDs, we embrace new discoveries that neo-critics are unequipped to handle."

I was just attempting to show him a glimpse of how non-believers see the state of the debate.

Zzzz... What? I've seen Bible curriculum before, you have to memorize every name in the Bible (like "No": a Pharoh mentioned once) and a weird pressure to conform, such as; go through the Bible and explain the "prophecies" away as describing an event contemporary to when it was written. Write a paper about the Messianic prophecies about the return of King David without talking about Jesus Christ. You kind of have to conform or it will hurt your grade. I would definitely pick a scholar of Canaanite Languages to tell me about the Bible now that we know Canaanite is the closest thing to Biblical Hebrew there is, and several unlocked phrases have had wild implications, such as what the phrase Bene Elohim refers to.

There was this old presentation brought before the Evangelical Theological Society entitled “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?”, which goes on about scholars who wrote for FARMS were also involved in serious scholarly work while our critics were amateurs still ruling the field with their mostly unfounded anti-Mormon diatribes.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

29 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There was this old presentation brought before the Evangelical Theological Society entitled “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?”, which goes on about scholars who wrote for FARMS were also involved in serious scholarly work while our critics were amateurs still ruling the field with their mostly unfounded anti-Mormon diatribes.

And of course the book, The New Mormon Challenge was supposed to be the first attempt at correcting that problem (and while it was a fresh approach and tried to interact with Latter-day Saint scholarship, it still didn't stand up to the Latter-day Saint rebuttals). 

[juliann]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

Of course I do. That is my point.

 

Then why were you making an issue of my saying two scholars?

Quote

Bokovoy wasn't told to avoid "outside information." Did you read the post you are responding to? Bokovoy claims he was told, “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."

Now you are merely splitting hairs. Of course going to a liberal school of religion is considered "outside" information. I received a couple of warnings about apostacy back in the day and my field was NT (meaning, Bible.) Have you studied at a liberal school of religion? The Bible is probably the best defense for Mormon theology that exists. Most religions can neatly tie into Christian history at some point, Mormonism is no exception. But, since the Bible is a mixed bag, there will always be those who will create their own Bible within the Bible to exclude everything else. Thus, my concern would be someone attending a Christian Bible college

 

Quote

 

Is it possible to become a world class expert on the textual criticism of the Bible and retain your testimony of Mormonism? (or of Fundamental Christianity, or JWism, or whatever else?) Yes. Despite the quotes from Bokovoy and Ehrman that I've shared, I personally think it's impossible to overestimate the ability of humans to believe what they want to believe.

Putting all this in the context of this thread, @Pyreaux was arguing early that "we are the scholarly now, we have the PHDs, we embrace new discoveries that neo-critics are unequipped to handle."

I was just attempting to show him a glimpse of how non-believers see the state of the debate.

 

Do you think anyone on a message board is unfamiliar with critics? You tried to do this by excluding those who have studied the Bible and retained if not strengthened their testimonies by throwing up a few anecdotes and claiming victory without acknowledging the many more scholars who did just fine with it. What the heck do you think is in the Bible...or liberal schools...that defies Mormonism more than any other religion? 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 12/1/2022 at 10:29 AM, 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)

(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. 

 

Kent P. Jackson's review essay was a review of one book, Old Testament and Related Studies, vol. 1 of the Collected Works, and the generalizations he makes there do not even cover the range of essays in that one book, let alone apply to everything in the subsequent, and therefore, not reviewed 18 volumes. (Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls article, and Daniel Peterson's later comments on how astounded he was on Nibley's grasp of the background literature when he read it in light of his own specialized background in Arabic studies.)  Compare the supposedly devastating insight that Analytics quoted:

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. 

Peter Novick gives an excellent description of the standards of scholarly objectively that Nibley, according to Jackson, violates:

Quote

To outrageously oversimplify, there are two principal meanings of objectivity. One, though somewhat fuzzy around the edges, is the common one, and it has to do with characteristics of a historical work’s relationship to the subject matter it treats. The master image in this conception is the mirror. This defines the ideal relationship between the historical work and that which it is representing. If it fully and accurately mirrors the historical reality with which it deals, it is objective; if it does not, it is not. At the center of the idea of historical objectivity is truth as correspondence to past reality, the image of the mirror. It presupposes a sharp separation between knower and known, between fact and value, and above all, between history and fiction. Historical facts are seen as prior to and independent of interpretation. The value of an interpretation is judged by how well it accounts for the facts, often with the additional demand that it account for all the facts or all the relevant facts. If an interpretation is contradicted by the facts, it has to be abandoned. Truth is one in this view, not perspectival. Whatever patterns exist in history are found and not made. 

    If these are the characteristics of the objective historical work, there are corresponding characteristics of the objective historian. Her role is that of a neutral or disinterested judge approaching the material without preconceptions.  (From Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New.” A talk delivered at the 1989 Sunstone Symposium held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.)

Such is the ideal.  The tricky bit is implimenting that ideal with respect to reality.  Novick continues:

Quote

Though radically compressed, this is a fair statement of the mainstream position on historical objectivity. Now I have not the time, and you have not the patience, to go through the ups and downs of this program over the past hundred years. I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). 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.

Lou Midgley has very good response to Kent P. Jackson's review of that single book volume 1 of the Nibley Festschrift, By Study and By Faith v1 (lxx-lxxiii), a 1990 volume that Kent P. Jackson contributed to, which is a strange thing, if Jackson's regard for Nibley's work was altogether low.  It did turn out that when Jackson wrote an essay for the FARMS Review of Nibley's Martha's book, he cited the existence of that review in BYU Studies as putting the lie to several of the claims Martha made in her book.  Midgley made use of Novick's essay in responding to Jackson, as Novick's essay makes use of N. R. Hansen, Patterns of Discovery,  Polanyi, The Social Construction of Reality, and of course, Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  The problem comes from assuming that ideology and prejudice and beams in one's own eye that ought to be examined is something that happens to other people, because if they were not prejudiced, they would, of course, agree with me.

Analytics writes that

Quote

Professor Wright has written a few papers that conclusively prove the Book of Mormon is of modern origin 

I happen to have read, and responded in print to a few of Wright's papers over the years.  In reading them, I find it important to keep in mind this from Douglas Hoffstader.

Quote

"The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions. ...Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved.  (Godel, Escher and Bach, 18, 19) 

What I noticed in reading Professor Wright's arguments is that his fixed systems of propositions were crucial to his arguments and his self-reflection on the possibility of beams in his own eyes were reminscient of those made by the philosopher of science, Bacon, in his devastating attacks on Copernicus.

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science was, quite consistently, an enemy of Copernicus.  Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest.  (Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defense of Science and Rationality, (London and New York, Routledge, 1994) 84-85.

For instance, see if you can spot the key background assumption that dictates the skeptical conclusions in his essay on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon in American Apocrypha:

Quote

One might argue that the wording is identical to the KJV because Joseph Smith sought to maintain a biblical style. But this could have been done without the word for word correspondance.... [and he gives his own translation compared to the KJV and says] Here the meaning is close, but the language is significantly different.  This is what one would reasonabily expect to find between the BoM Isiah and the KJV if the BoM Isaiah were indeed a translation. (Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon" in American Apocrypha, 158)

The underlying assumption here, just as crucial to the conclusions reached here as are Bacon's assumptions in rejecting Copernicus is, "It's not the way I would have arranged things if I were God."  If Wright were to make that assumption more explicit in his argument, he would then have to defend it's accuracy and applicability.  In that case, the logical foundations might appear a bit more sandy that he wants us to assume, particularly in light of Isaiah 55:8-11 on his ways not being our ways.  When God does speak in the Doctrine and Covenents, giving his approach, an authoritative declaration of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" talks of revelations being given "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." (D&C 1,:6, 24).   When Joseph Smith talks about the Bible translation he uses, he says, "I might have rendered a plainer translation than this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands." (D&C 128:18).

Wright's other important essay on the Book of Mormon in Metcalfe's New Approaches concerned his case for Alma 13 being anachronistically dependent on Hebrews.

Quote

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps
even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle
parallel elements in Alma 12–13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for
the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by
scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12–13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.⁵

I pointed out in "Paradigms Regained" and "The Deuteronomistic De-christianizing of the Old Testament" the implications of Barker's The Older Testament for this argument.

Quote

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this
priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem.
We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient
kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the
early Church’s association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.⁵

So I could write that "In contrast to Wright’s conclusion, Barker’s work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back
seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of
the temple."  And further that:

Quote

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,⁵⁸ we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes
that recur in Barker’s books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),⁵⁹ his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma
13:5),⁶⁰ the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),⁶¹ the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being “washed
white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 13:11),⁶² angels being sent to “all nations” (Alma 13:22),⁶³ judgment (Alma 13:29–30),⁶⁴ hell,
and the second death (Alma 13:29–30).⁶⁵ This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology
presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright’s article.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol16/iss2/5/

In all of this, I recommend reading Ian Barbour's wonderful, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

https://www.religion-online.org/book/myths-models-and-paradigms-a-comparative-study-in-science-and-religion/

In matters of faith, we can openly acknowledge that we work on a basis of what Alma 32calls "cause to believe" rather than final, unquestionable, proof that coerces reason into submission.  And indeed, that such a circumstance is preferable.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 4, 2022 by Kevin Christensen
Typos

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Quote

"The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions. ...Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, not matter what axiomatic system is involved.  (Godel, Escher and Bach, 18, 19) 

When I was teaching, my version was 'Theorems always rest on postulates'. Anyone claiming to be an academic who does not embrace this point cannot be taken seriously.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Nevo]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:08 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Peter Novick gives an excellent description of the standards of scholarly objectivity that Nibley, according to Jackson, violates

Jackson didn't fault Nibley for failing to be a neutral or disinterested observer, or for failing to accurately mirror the past "as it really was." Rather, he faulted him for doing bad scholarship, for flattening and distorting and taking things out of context to suit his own purposes (which Nibley absolutely did do in Old Testament Studies and elsewhere.)

Novick never endorsed "anything goes" history. As he explained in That Noble Dream: "It certainly is true that with respect to particular issues, for example, the profitability of slavery, historians bring specialized knowledge and techniques to bear; that their conclusions are largely governed by historians' rules of evidence and inference which they have internalized, and which the historical community monitors; that whatever their backgrounds, whatever their desires, whatever they'd like to believe is true about the profitability of slavery, what they ultimately wind up concluding is powerfully constrained by all of these factors" (Novick, That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 10).

Novick subsequently clarified that the "the objectivity question" he raised was "in no sense a methodological question." He was emphatically not promoting a "relativist methodological approach." He went on to explain: "If two historians, one a 'nihilist' relativist and the other a dyed-in-the-wool objectivist, set out to produce a history of the Civil War, or a biography of George Washington, there is nothing about their 'relativism' or 'objectivism' per se that would lead them to do their research differently, frame their narrative or analysis differently, or, indeed, prevent their writing identical accounts" (Novick, "My Correct Views on Everything," The American Historical Review 96, no. 3 [June 1991]: 700; emphasis in original). 

Elizabeth Clark has made the same point: "The critique of objectivism . . . does not imply that historians need tolerate lazy scholarship or fudged footnotes, or that counterevidence can be conveniently overlooked" (Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004], 157). 

I think it is highly doubtful that Novick would have sided with Nibley over Jackson, particularly given Novick's unflattering comments about "the old Mormon historians" in his Sunstone talk (starting at 52:55), which applies to much of Nibley's work as well.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Nevo

[Nevo]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:44 AM, juliann said:

What the heck do you think is in the Bible...or liberal schools...that defies Mormonism more than any other religion?

As you know, critical biblical scholarship tends to undermine biblical literalism, which is baked into a lot of Latter-day Saint scripture and doctrine. So, Mormonism is obviously going to be a lot more vulnerable than most mainline Protestant denominations if we discard, say, a literal Adam and Eve, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, etc. Or a literal Tower of Babel and confusion of languages. Or the idea that ancient prophets wrote books or that a proto-Hebrew Bible existed in 600 BC.

Most Latter-day Saint scholars can't bring themselves to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews, let alone 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. And I don't expect we will ever see LDS agreement that John son of Zebedee didn't author the Gospel of John. Or that Jesus didn't say the "I Am" sayings or deliver the discourses attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel. Or that the Sermon on the Mount is a Matthean composition. Or that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, didn't organize a church, and mistakenly expected the imminent end of the world.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Nevo