David B. Speaks

[_RockSlider]

And I listen to this man!

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... s-trouble/

Also Shirts!

[_Kishkumen]

The recent firing of Daniel Peterson as editor of the Review of Mormon Studies has been the subject of considerable attention. While almost everyone in Mormon studies has expressed concern over the way that this change was handled, several younger LDS scholars have shared their excitement over the announcement that with this move, BYU’s Maxwell Institute is seeking to increase its academic significance. In terms of the firing of Dr. Peterson, the Institute’s website states:

Quote
The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is continually striving to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University. Our areas of endeavor include the study of LDS scripture and other religious texts and related fields of religious scholarship, including the burgeoning field of Mormon studies.


While I hate to be a pessimist, and certainly support the sentiment expressed in this declaration, I believe that the loss of Dr. Peterson will actually bring greater challenges to accomplish this goal than many have realized.

Losing Dr. Peterson will come with a heavy price. Dr. Peterson is responsible for contributing some of the most interesting observations on the Book of Mormon that the Maxwell Institute has published, including articles that explore possible Book of Mormon allusions to the Northwest Semitic goddess Asherah, as well as issues connected with Nephite kingship and authority.

Moreover, there are many LDS scholars that have made significant contributions to the Institute over the years who support Dr. Peterson and may therefore no longer contribute their work to the Institute. I’m not trying to speak for these individuals, and they may certainly think differently, but a list of Dan’s friends would include such scholars as John Welch, John Sorenson, Stephen Ricks, Don Parry, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, and Royal Skousen, just to name a few.

All one has to do is simply search the Maxwell Institute’s list of authors to see the sheer number of contributions, let alone classic examples of LDS scholarship directly associated with this list of writers. If these authors no longer contribute to Maxwell publications, how will the Institute continue to foster academic research on LDS scripture? Without these scholars, who is left at BYU to contribute scholarly observations on LDS scripture? The only ones who remain are instructors in BYU’s Religious Education departments of Ancient Scripture and Church History and Doctrine.

Perhaps they are the ones who will now move the work forward into increased academic prestige?

I believe it's important to note, however, that none of the aforementioned pioneers and primary contributors to ancient studies and LDS scripture are connected with Religious Education at BYU. Historically, the contributions of BYU’s religion professors to FARMS and the Maxwell Institute have been trivial at best.

And this lack of scholarship is by design. Recent hires in the department of ancient scripture have focused primarily upon LDS seminary teachers with degrees in Instructional Technology, and Education; those currently being considered seriously for research positions in the department of Ancient Scripture include teachers with degrees in Public Administration, etc. The current Department Chair over Ancient Scripture holds a PhD in Sociology, and the former Department Chair over Ancient Scripture has a degree in P.E.

Even the few instructors in Ancient Scripture with academic degrees somewhat connected with the field do not actually have a background in ancient scripture, but instead, in an ancillary subject to ancient scripture such as Egyptology, Comparative Semitics, or Archeology. Very few instructors in the history of the department have had degrees in ancient scripture; and, not surprising, very few have contributed to FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, let alone the greater academic field of scriptural analysis outside of Mormonism. It just hasn't happened.

Without the likes of serious scholars such as Dan Peterson and his friends, how will the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship possibly hope to align its work “with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University”?

There’s a reason why FARMS was originally founded by scholars outside of BYU's department of religious education. Religious Education, i.e. those at BYU who are left to pick up where Drs Peterson, Hamblin et al left off, are actually deeply opposed to religious scholarship. Note, for example, the introduction to former Religious Education Dean Robert Millet’s Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon:

Quote
In writing a commentary on the Book of Mormon it is not the authors' intent to suggest that a proper understanding of this marvelous book of scripture requires the interpretive helps of trained scholars. Further, we make no pretense to being such. Ours has been the blessing of opportunity. For some years we have had occasion to be both student and teacher of the Nephite record. As to the world's scholarship, it ought be observed that the best of man's learning, as it has been directed toward the Bible, has not resulted in an increase of faith in that holy book. Indeed, one of the primary purposes for which the Lord gave us the Book of Mormon was to defend the Bible and its teaching against the siege of the supposedly wise and learned. Scholars are far too wont to sift the sands of faith through screens of their own making, and in doing so often find themselves left with nothing but the rocks of their own unbelief; vol. 2 of the Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon.

This statement from Millet and McConkie in which they acknowledge that they are not trained scholars and share their perspective that academic study in the scripture leads to unbelief represents the foundation upon which BYU’s department of Religious Education has been built.

Recently, when BYU Religious Education professors such as David Seeley and Dana Pike in the Deseret Book publication Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament even made mention of the fact that most biblical scholars believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that it is comprised of separate sources, these scholars were called into the Dean’s office and corrected for possibly destroying faith.

So while I applaud the efforts of the Maxwell Institute to strive to improve its efforts to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, I have to ask the question that apparently no one else did.

Since the Institute has systematically removed and/or offended all of the serious contributors from BYU to the field of scriptural studies, who’s left to improve the Institute at BYU?

Perhaps Dan’s position can be given to Robert Millet.

[_Drifting]

In answer to the question that David asks that no one else did.

Won't God sort it all out by installing Dehlin into the vacant position?

[_Chap]

I think this is clearly not so much directed against the departure of Daniel Peterson from the Maxwell institute, but instead is designed to use the occasion of that departure to point out the notable lack of certain kinds of scholarly expertise in the regular departments of BYU that one might expect to be called upon to contribute the the 'new direction' at the MI.

In particular, as he points out:

Recent hires in the department of ancient scripture have focused primarily upon LDS seminary teachers with degrees in Instructional Technology, and Education; those currently being considered seriously for research positions in the department of Ancient Scripture include teachers with degrees in Public Administration, etc. The current Department Chair over Ancient Scripture holds a PhD in Sociology, and the former Department Chair over Ancient Scripture has a degree in P.E.

Even the few instructors in Ancient Scripture with academic degrees somewhat connected with the field do not actually have a background in ancient scripture, but instead, in an ancillary subject to ancient scripture such as Egyptology, Comparative Semitics, or Archeology. Very few instructors in the history of the department have had degrees in ancient scripture; and, not surprising, very few have contributed to FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, let alone the greater academic field of scriptural analysis outside of Mormonism. It just hasn't happened.

And - I say this without a trace of a sneer at DB himself - the idiots DID NOT HIRE DAVID BOKOVOY!

[_Kishkumen]

As some of you may know, I consider David Bokovoy a personal friend, even though we undoubtedly do not see eye to eye on everything. This is another instance in which I either do not understand what David is saying or perhaps I do not agree.

Daniel Peterson wrote his dissertation on Neo-Platonism in Medieval Islam. William Hamblin is a historian of the Medieval Period who has written on the Crusades. Louis Midgley is a scholar of Political Science. Jack Welch only holds an MA in Classics. Of all of these gentlemen he is the most qualified by training to hold forth on topics regarding antiquity. What particularly distinguishes these men as scholars of ancient scripture?

The simple fact is that they are not qualified to do so by training and have had to cobble together expertise without the benefit of intensive training under the leading lights of those fields. When LDS young people do go out to get the requisite expertise in ancient scripture from the real scholars, it often leads to problems. Ask Professor Frank Judd how easy it was for him to adjust to training with Bart Ehrman. If they manage to come out of the experience OK, they are still looked upon by BYU faculty with a measure of suspicion, as David knows.

One of the biggest problems LDS scholars have faced in contextualizing their subject in antiquity is that 1) a large number of the men attempting to do so were writing outside of their fields of expertise, and 2) even when they were writing in their field of expertise, it is a real challenge to place 19th-century texts in an ancient context, and retain any kind of credibility that reaches beyond the LDS community.

It is not precisely clear to me what David expects. The MI was never doing proper scholarship on ancient scripture in the first place. The Old Guard were not real scholars of Biblical Studies or New Testament. They were, in fact, writing outside of their primary fields of expertise. I agree that MI now has the opportunity to hire someone with real expertise in one of those areas, but my impression is that they are looking for someone who is an expert in nineteenth-century American religion, which makes his entire post moot. If this is to be real Mormon Studies now, and not just Studies that Appeal to Mormons, then expertise of the kind he discusses is entirely beside the point.

Now, if they want to continue to do Studies on Antiquity that Appeal to Mormons (something I have no problem with and in fact enjoy), then they really ought to hire David Bokovoy. At least he has real expertise and publications in the requisite field.

[_harmony]

Losing Dr. Peterson will come with a heavy price. Dr. Peterson is responsible for contributing some of the most interesting observations on the Book of Mormon that the Maxwell Institute has published, including articles that explore possible Book of Mormon allusions to the Northwest Semitic goddess Asherah, as well as issues connected with Nephite kingship and authority.

One small thing: it might be helpful to weigh the two sides of Dan: the brilliant scholar against the sarcastic editor. Both sides are in print. Unfortunately, the brilliant scholar commenting on interesting scholarly topics shows up much less often than the sarcastic editor commenting on persons and personalities. The brillaint scholar hasn't shown up in a long time, while the sarcastic editor has been all too evident in recent years.

Moreover, there are many LDS scholars that have made significant contributions to the Institute over the years who support Dr. Peterson and may therefore no longer contribute their work to the Institute. I’m not trying to speak for these individuals, and they may certainly think differently, but a list of Dan’s friends would include such scholars as John Welch, John Sorenson, Stephen Ricks, Don Parry, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, and Royal Skousen, just to name a few.

Perhaps we won't be treated to any more articles with "Butthead" as a basis, now, since the author of that particular article will most likely not be writing for the Review.

Sorry... not impressed.

All one has to do is simply search the Maxwell Institute’s list of authors to see the sheer number of contributions, let alone classic examples of LDS scholarship directly associated with this list of writers. If these authors no longer contribute to Maxwell publications, how will the Institute continue to foster academic research on LDS scripture? Without these scholars, who is left at BYU to contribute scholarly observations on LDS scripture? The only ones who remain are instructors in BYU’s Religious Education departments of Ancient Scripture and Church History and Doctrine.

Then they should have stuck to classic LDS scholarship, and shown some personal restraint in their less "classic" articles... less "classic" also being less "classy".

If BYU is so lacking in scholars, perhaps that is something that also needs to be addressed... at the university level, rather than at the MI level. These guys (see above list) are, for the most part, getting on in years. Where are the younger BYU scholars? Why has BYU not been cultivating an entire cadre of younger scholars to carry on?

And this lack of scholarship is by design. Recent hires in the department of ancient scripture have focused primarily upon LDS seminary teachers with degrees in Instructional Technology, and Education; those currently being considered seriously for research positions in the department of Ancient Scripture include teachers with degrees in Public Administration, etc. The current Department Chair over Ancient Scripture holds a PhD in Sociology, and the former Department Chair over Ancient Scripture has a degree in P.E.

Well, there ya go. You get what you pay for. And if BYU isn't interested in LDS scholars or Mormon Studies, then it's not surprising there is a dearth of pertinent research.

Perhaps the MI has become so marginalized that they are now irrelevant to the university's chosen path.

Without the likes of serious scholars such as Dan Peterson and his friends, how will the Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship possibly hope to align its work “with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University”?

Sounds like those serious scholars might have been more relevant had they stuck to scholarship and not engaged in character assassination.

Recently, when BYU Religious Education professors such as David Seeley and Dana Pike in the Deseret Book publication Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament even made mention of the fact that most biblical scholars believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that it is comprised of separate sources, these scholars were called into the Dean’s office and corrected for possibly destroying faith.

And we are surprised by this? Actually... we are not. This is life at BYU.

So while I applaud the efforts of the Maxwell Institute to strive to improve its efforts to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, I have to ask the question that apparently no one else did.

Since the Institute has systematically removed and/or offended all of the serious contributors from BYU to the field of scriptural studies, who’s left to improve the Institute at BYU?

Perhaps Dan’s position can be given to Robert Millet.

Actually, no, they didn't. Said apologists (you notice I don't say scholars) chose to separate themselves from MI. Reassignment does not equal removal. Separation and taking offense, on the other hand, is done by an individual(s) having a childish temper tantrum.

[_Drifting]

Is David advocating that the MI recruit some so-called intellectuals?
Because if he is, Packer ain't gonna be happy...

[_Joe Geisner]

As some of you may know, I consider David Bokovoy a personal friend, even though we undoubtedly do not see eye to eye on everything. This is another instance in which I either do not understand what David is saying or perhaps I do not agree.

Thanks Kish for writing this thoughtful response. I too wondered if I was not understanding what had been written. It makes no sense to me.

[_Bob Loblaw]

It's sad that the only options BYU sees are keeping the aggressive and often-ludicrous apologetics of the past or replacing it with Religion Department pablum.

[_Chap]

As some of you may know, I consider David Bokovoy a personal friend, even though we undoubtedly do not see eye to eye on everything. This is another instance in which I either do not understand what David is saying or perhaps I do not agree.

Thanks Kish for writing this thoughtful response. I too wondered if I was not understanding what had been written. It makes no sense to me.

Doesn't my post above make a relevant suggestion? This is not about the MI at all, surely, but is directed elsewhere?

Basic principle of studying a text: if it seems at first reading to make no sense, you may not be approaching it from the right direction. Surely that applies to anything written by someone as smart as David Bokovoy?