David B. Speaks

[_Aristotle Smith]

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.

I think he is basically saying that Mormonism has historically had almost no place for the serious study of scripture in an academic context. The closest thing it has ever had for this is FARMS. It wasn't much, but it was something.

Further, faithful Mormon trained in biblical studies is practically an oxymoron. The closest thing that Mormons have are scholars trained in ancillary fields, such as DCP's training as an Islamicist. Clearly not ideal for studying ancient scripture, but better than being a P.E. teacher. So again, the situation for people who want to look at ancient scripture from a scholarly viewpoint, while being faithful Mormons, hasn't been great, but there's at least a little bit there.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, Mormons who wanted some modicum of insight into their scriptures have had a place to go. It wasn't a great place, but it was something. Now that has been reduced to zilch. Since a little bit of insight from marginally trained scholars is better than no insight from anyone, I think David B. is saying the current situation is now worse than before. I have to agree with him on this one.

The new MSR is most likely going to completely ignore ancient scripture, at least in its own context. There might be articles on the reception history of the Dutch translation of the Book of Mormon, or on the history of translating D&C 132 into foreign languages, but nothing putting them into their purported context. I'll even go one further, the new MSR crew is probably not going to give a crap about any truth claims made by LDS scriptures, preferring instead to put forward some mild version of postmodernism to avoid the issue entirely. They won't have the training to tackle the issues and they most likely won't care about them anyway.

[Guest]

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.

Whoops, I'm going to delete my original post, because I see that David was only saying they wouldn't contribute to the Institute, not to Mormon studies in general.

So long as they continue to contribute to other Mormon studies outlets, I don't see a problem with this. If this happens, I think that the loss of Dan's supporters will be offset by the addition of scholars willing to contribute to MI publications now that the old attack polemics will be a thing of the past.

[_Cylon]

The discussion over there regarding the MI fiasco has gotten much more interesting since David Bokovoy and Kerry Shirts joined the conversation. It's good to see some perspective from believers who aren't just parroting the party line of the Daniel Peterson Fan Club. I've especially been surprised at a lot of Kerry's comments, as he's said a number of things that I think would have easily gotten a banning if they had been said by any of us.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

...

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.

....

Does anyone know more about these two BYU professors getting "spanked" by the Dean for writing that most biblical scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

[_Joe Geisner]

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?

Chap and Ari,

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I am trying to understand David's ideas, but I am with Ms. Jack on this. It seems David is suggesting you cannot have Mormon Studies without Peterson. or at least his ideology.

Maybe it has to do with some research I have been doing on Wesley Walters ground breaking article "New Light on Mormon Origins."

Leonard Arrington early as September 22, 1954 wrote a letter to Lyman Tyler (librarian at BYU), suggesting that BYU needed to fund a monograph series that would focus on “church doctrine and history.” A great deal of letters going back and forth between the 1st Prez. and people like Tyler, Arrington, Truman Madsen, etc. culminated in Madsen being appointed in 1966 as Director of the newly founded Institute of Mormon Studies. Then an entire new round of letters between all parties started discussing what the projects would be. Walters paper changed everything, money flowed in and books, article and then Arrington being appointed Church historian happened.

It was actually a good plan, and if Packer had not destroyed it, it might have worked. My point in all this: it can be done better, it should be done better and it was done better.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I am trying to understand David's ideas, but I am with Ms. Jack on this. It seems David is suggesting you cannot have Mormon Studies without Peterson. or at least his ideology.

I don't think that's what he is saying. I think David B. is for the most part uninterested in Mormon Studies. If he were, he would have gotten a different degree. David B., I think, wants to write on ancient scripture from the viewpoint of a faithful Mormon. Where is he now going to do this? The new MSR is probably going to be completely unqualified to adjudicate any article that David B. writes.

[_Chap]

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I am trying to understand David's ideas, but I am with Ms. Jack on this. It seems David is suggesting you cannot have Mormon Studies without Peterson. or at least his ideology.

I don't think that's what he is saying. I think David B. is for the most part uninterested in Mormon Studies. If he were, he would have gotten a different degree. David B., I think, wants to write on ancient scripture from the viewpoint of a faithful Mormon. Where is he now going to do this? The new MSR is probably going to be completely unqualified to adjudicate any article that David B. writes.

And the hiring policy of BYU seems to have made it plain that people like DB are not wanted elsewhere either.

On the subject of the mysterious lack of interest in recruiting certain kinds of expertise at BYU, we had a thread here once about why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology.

The reasoning given by DCP and others to explain why this would be undesirable was sketchy to say the least.

[_Sophocles]

Leonard Arrington early as September 22, 1954 wrote a letter to Lyman Tyler (librarian at BYU), suggesting that BYU needed to fund a monograph series that would focus on “church doctrine and history.” A great deal of letters going back and forth between the 1st Prez. and people like Tyler, Arrington, Truman Madsen, etc. culminated in Madsen being appointed in 1966 as Director of the newly founded Institute of Mormon Studies. Then an entire new round of letters between all parties started discussing what the projects would be. Walters paper changed everything, money flowed in and books, article and then Arrington being appointed Church historian happened.

All the while the Book of Abraham debacle and Hugh Nibley were happening.

On the subject of the mysterious lack of interest in recruiting certain kinds of expertise at BYU, we had a thread here once about why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology.

BYU has chosen to do real science and it seems as though the testimonies of some only barely manage to survive. Imagine if they tried to do real religion.

[_MsJack]

We had a thread here once on why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology. The reasoning given by DCP and others to explain why this would be undesirable was sketchy to say the least.

If I recall correctly, I was one of the people who defended this. The reason BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology is because, in part, where would a person with a degree in LDS theology find work? Other Christians can get degrees in theology because there's a whole network of seminaries, parachurch organizations, and ministries where they can put those degrees to work, plus they can always get an M. Div afterwards and find work as a pastor. Mormons only have FAIR (which has very few paid positions), and a smattering of jobs at the BYUs. Maybe also a position or two at Claremont and Southern Virginia University. There are some other organizations, but I'm not sure they have any full-time positions.

There are other issues at play, but I gotta run.

[_Aristotle Smith]

We had a thread here once on why BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology. The reasoning given by DCP and others to explain why this would be undesirable was sketchy to say the least.

If I recall correctly, I was one of the people who defended this. The reason BYU has no degree offering in LDS theology is because, in part, where would a person with a degree in LDS theology find work? Other Christians can get degrees in theology because there's a whole network of seminaries, parachurch organizations, and ministries where they can put those degrees to work, plus they can always get an M. Div afterwards and find work as a pastor. Mormons only have FAIR (which has very few paid positions), and a smattering of jobs at the BYUs. Maybe also a position or two at Claremont and Southern Virginia University. There are some other organizations, but I'm not sure they have any full-time positions.

There are other issues at play, but I gotta run.

I used to think this a valid reason, but I don't think so anymore. Mainly because of the following joke:

What do you do to get a BA in philosophy off your front porch? You pay him for the pizza he is delivering.

The joke would work just fine if you substitute "LDS Theology" for philosophy. Since BYU has a philosophy program, a theology program would seem to be fine, at least from a career standpoint.