Stephen Smoot's LGTB Presentation At The Upcoming FAIR Conference

[Everybody Wang Chung]

This year's FAIR Conference line up has just been announced. What caught my attention is that Stephen Smoot's Thursday presentation is titled "Abraham and the Stranger at Sodom and Gomorrah: Reading the Bible and Navigating LGBT Identity."

Could this be a watershed year for FAIR and the LGTB community? Will Stephen advocate for wider acceptance of LGBT in the Church and FAIR? Who knows, but this could be very interesting.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/con ... ugust-2021

[Sledge]

I don’t generally think of Smoot as any kind of scholar, at least not yet. He’s had nothing of real importance to add to the conversation thus far... except...

I was pleasantly surprised at his epic takedown of Montez’ research. Montez didn’t know what to do so they bailed.

[Dr Moore]

Smoot's presentation will undoubtedly be interesting!

I look forward to seeing Mike Ash, "Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet's Role as Creative Co-Author."

I'll bet $1 Nelson will never affirmatively say this phrase: "Joseph Smith was the Creative Co-Author of the Book of Mormon"

[The Stig]

Smoot's presentation will undoubtedly be interesting!

I look forward to seeing Mike Ash, "Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet's Role as Creative Co-Author."

I'll bet $1 Nelson will never affirmatively say this phrase: "Joseph Smith was the Creative Co-Author of the Book of Mormon"

I think you can add pre-decimal point zeros to the amount of the bet and still have a sure thing.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t generally think of Smoot as any kind of scholar, at least not yet. He’s had nothing of real importance to add to the conversation thus far... except...

I was pleasantly surprised at his epic takedown of Montez’ research. Montez didn’t know what to do so they bailed.

Link?

- Doc

[DrStakhanovite]

Not gonna lie, having Smoot present after Carl Trueman is going to be interesting.

[Sledge]

I don’t generally think of Smoot as any kind of scholar, at least not yet. He’s had nothing of real importance to add to the conversation thus far... except...

I was pleasantly surprised at his epic takedown of Montez’ research. Montez didn’t know what to do so they bailed.

Link?

- Doc

Two fairly recent articles appears on Smoot's blog following Montez's Mormon Stories interview. The first one is a general rebuttal to Montez's thesis, and the second one is a rebuttal to one of Montez's comments submitted on the first post (as well as a claim in their thesis).

B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: Exhumation and Reburial
B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: An Addendum

The second one has an interesting exchange where Montez's research is shown to be so poor that they only included part of a radio address made by Roberts (the part, of course, that supports Montez's thesis).

In both her thesis (22n49) and in a comment she left yesterday on my post, Montez cited a radio address given by Roberts in 1924 as “one example of his wavering commitment to [the Book of Mormon’s] historicity.”

[Roberts] called the Book of Mormon an “alleged volume of sacred, American History and Revelation” and quoted the scripture “Adam fell that men might be….” as “one of the Mormon Prophet’s noblest utterances.” In Mormon belief, it was Lehi, not Joseph Smith, that wrote such a line; most Mormons would not credit any of the Book of Mormon’s words to Joseph Smith.

When Montez drew my attention to this address last night, I confessed that I had never before seen it, or was otherwise unfamiliar with its contents. I was unable to find a digitized version of the speech online, although I did see that a transcript of it is held in the B. H. Roberts papers at the University of Utah (Box 10, Folder 10) and that John W. Welch had previously cited the address in a 1992 article.

Thanks to my friend Matthew Roper, a true archival bloodhound, I now have in my possession a copy of a transcript of Roberts’ speech. I have reproduced it below both as a downloadable PDF and as embedded images.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Uh. I don’t quite see his responses to her as an “epic takedown”. She made three comments on his blog, one of which he didn’t answer - which could be seen as him bailing on the back and forth. In his blog article, which generated the aforementioned exchange, Smoot quoting Roberts’ ‘A Comprehensive History of the Church’ doesn’t seem too far off from circular reasoning with regard to Roberts’ testimony of the Book of Mormon. What’s he gonna do? Write for the church and then debunk the Book of Mormon? That doesn’t make sense.

- Doc

[Sledge]

Uh. I don’t quite see his responses to her as an “epic takedown”. She made three comments on his blog, one of which he didn’t answer - which could be seen as him bailing on the back and forth. In his blog article, which generated the aforementioned exchange, Smoot quoting Roberts’ ‘A Comprehensive History of the Church’ doesn’t seem too far off from circular reasoning with regard to Roberts’ testimony of the Book of Mormon. What’s he gonna do? Write for the church and then debunk the Book of Mormon? That doesn’t make sense.

- Doc

It’s only been a half hour since I posted that. You haven’t had enough time to read through everything and understand the full story. Go. Read.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

How long does it take you to read two blog entries, and a back and forth in the comments section?

Anyway. What was it in the blog piece you found to be an “epic takedown” of her thesis or comments (not sure which one you’re talking about)?

- Doc