Boylan the Beggar

[Bill_Billiams]

He has said that he studied Mormonism in his teens and was baptized LDS when he was 18. So I think all (or at least most) of his degree work was done after he converted.

Ah. OK. Well, that makes a big difference in my mind. It starts to look more like he armed himself for apologetics.

Based on what I've heard him say that seems like his primary motivation.

[MsJack]

Ms Jack, May I ask a small clarification to help me understand your meaning. A couple of bits of ignorance on my part is causing difficulty. I do not know what Mr Holland did with a reference to Karlstadt. Do you mean exegesis in relation to historical context of a scriptures composition or the history of how exegesis was done, or history of the results of exegesis? I suspect my uncertainty on these contributes to my not knowing what sort of "history of ideas" approach you mean.

I certainly agree with your observation that the usual LDS view sees some positives in Protestant tradition and Christian tradition in general.

Good questions, huckelberry!

In October 2022, at General Conference, Jeffrey Holland gave a talk called "Lifted Up upon the Cross" in which he made a bit of a dig at Catholics and Protestants. He said:

By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. [7] In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.

Now Holland isn't entirely correct here. The anchor is one of the earliest examples of Christian iconography and was used by Jews before Christianity; we have one Christian inscription of the anchor that maybe dates to the first century. It's theorized that part of the reason Christians were drawn to the anchor was because it contained a hidden cross (also Heb 6:19). We know from the Alexamenos graffito (c. AD 200) that Christians were mocked for their belief in a deity who died on a cross, so the anchor may have allowed Christians to utilize cross iconography in a more subtle way. That said, Mormons don't utilize other symbols of early Christianity (the ICHTHYS--either in fish or circle form, the concentric circles, the anchor), so Mormon evasion of the cross hardly puts Mormons in better alignment with early Christianity than Protestants and Catholics.

However, let's look at Holland's footnote [7], which says:

Early and traditional Christian figures such as Martin Luther’s associate Andreas Karlstadt (1486–1541) were arguing by the late Middle Ages that “the crucifix [on its own] depicted only Christ’s human suffering and neglected to display his resurrection and redemptive [powers]” (in John Hilton III, Considering the Cross: How Calvary Connects Us with Christ [2021], 17).

There are a number of problems with this. It's technically true that Karlstadt was an associate of Luther, and that he didn't like crosses, but these two facts have been grotesquely ripped from their contexts. Karlstadt had some early affiliation with Luther, but Luther was cooling on his alliance with Karlstadt by 1522 as the latter's views were taking him in a more radical direction. By 1524, the two had completely fallen out and Luther was speaking out against Karlstadt. So what Holland has done here would be a bit like if I cited William Law as an "associate of Joseph Smith" without any contextualization of their falling out.

The bigger problem is that Karlstadt disliked and avoided crosses because he was an iconoclast. He opposed all public religious iconography: statues, crosses, images of saints and Mary, etc. He would have opposed statues of the angel Moroni, the Christus in Salt Lake City, and even those three poles outside of Mormon ward meetinghouses. But for Holland, there is agreement between Karlstadt and Mormonism because both groups dislike crosses. He isn't trying to understand Karlstadt's ideas in their own context, he's looking for superficial similarities to Mormonism and then declaring victory.

The discipline of exegetical history / history of biblical interpretation is actually a relatively recent one. It was essentially pioneered by David Steinmetz (1936-2015) and to some extent his mentor, Heiko Oberman (1930-2001). Steinmetz and Oberman have a number of students who have been influential here; one of them is Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary. The Steinmetz school is pretty derisive of what they call "history of ideas." Muller explains:

According to [the history of ideas] approach, on the assumption that ideas transmit themselves and influence other ideas, apart from real people inhabiting actual historical and cultural contexts, one can elicit an idea from an early disputation of Luther, note its similarity to something that Luther wrote in commentary twenty years later, find a parallel in an early letter of Calvin, paste it on to a similar idea from a sermon preached by Calvin toward the end of his life, and—voila—demonstrate any number of wonderful things, such as a foundational "theology of the cross" motif uniting the Reformers, or perhaps, a deep fear of abysses and labyrinths or of wind and water oppressing the minds of those same Reformers. Luther can contribute to existentialism—or become a Greek orthodox theologian; Calvin can be Barthian or, if you prefer, a Brunnerian. Mind you, those poor players, strutting and fretting about the stage of the sixteenth century did not actually register these issues.

[Richard A. Muller, “David C. Steinmetz and the schola Steinmetziana moderna” (address, American Society of Church History Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 5 January 2006), 4-5; italics his.]

In contrast, what the Steinmetz school advocates for is a "careful, contextual examination of documents and the analysis of documents with a view to the scholarship on the issues and the present state of the question."

So I hope this helps to see what I'm getting at here. A number of Mormons and Mormon apologists read Christian history not to carefully and contextually understand these Christians who lived before them, but in an effort to raid the riches of church history for things that look and sound like Mormonism, which they then draft into their "apostasy" narrative. Essentially, "See, these Christians used to have traces of the truth, but now they are in apostasy." They aren't interested in understanding these figures and persons and ideas on their own terms, in their own contexts, and often once one does examine the context, the "parallels" and "bullseyes" rapidly fall apart. Mormons frequently engage in the "history of ideas" approach that Muller derides, even though he does not mention Mormons specifically. I saw so, so much of it in my time at BYU, although I did not know that was what I was seeing at the time.

I have not looked carefully at Boylan's work, and I don't want to pre-judge him, but so far he does not strike me as careful and contextual in his approach to church history. I will say more when I have had time to do justice to what he has written. Given our shared interests (Mormonism, exegetical history, patristics), I'm very curious, although his behavior towards anyone even mildly critical of him is certainly concerning.

[Bill_Billiams]

I have not looked carefully at Boylan's work, and I don't want to pre-judge him, but so far he does not strike me as careful and contextual in his approach to church history. I will say more when I have had time to do justice to what he has written. Given our shared interests (Mormonism, exegetical history, patristics), I'm very curious, although his behavior towards anyone even mildly critical of him is certainly concerning.

Thank you for sharing your historical research and explaining the different schools of thought you referenced.

I'll be interested to see your opinion of Boylan's work. He has been posting a lot about Origen recently. He seems quite pleased with Origen's doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. He doesn't seem to have posted anything about Origen's view on infant baptism or why it should be done lol. Seems to be a "history of ideas" approach which, as you said, seems to be common in mopologetics.

[huckelberry]

Ms Jack, May I ask a small clarification to help me understand your meaning. A couple of bits of ignorance on my part is causing difficulty. I do not know what Mr Holland did with a reference to Karlstadt. Do you mean exegesis in relation to historical context of a scriptures composition or the history of how exegesis was done, or history of the results of exegesis? I suspect my uncertainty on these contributes to my not knowing what sort of "history of ideas" approach you mean.

I certainly agree with your observation that the usual LDS view sees some positives in Protestant tradition and Christian tradition in general.

Good questions, huckelberry!

In October 2022, at General Conference, Jeffrey Holland gave a talk called "Lifted Up upon the Cross" in which he made a bit of a dig at Catholics and Protestants. He said:

By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. [7] In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.

Now Holland isn't entirely correct here. The anchor is one of the earliest examples of Christian iconography and was used by Jews before Christianity; we have one Christian inscription of the anchor that maybe dates to the first century. It's theorized that part of the reason Christians were drawn to the anchor was because it contained a hidden cross (also Heb 6:19). We know from the Alexamenos graffito (c. AD 200) that Christians were mocked for their belief in a deity who died on a cross, so the anchor may have allowed Christians to utilize cross iconography in a more subtle way. That said, Mormons don't utilize other symbols of early Christianity (the ICHTHYS--either in fish or circle form, the concentric circles, the anchor), so Mormon evasion of the cross hardly puts Mormons in better alignment with early Christianity than Protestants and Catholics.................

abridged here, full post is worth reading and can be found a couple posts above.

MsJack, thankyou for taking the time for such a clear explanation.

It reminds me that there is a bit of a style convention common in LDS talks. Present an idea you wish to present, find some quote that says something similar and present that quote. It serves the purpose of repetition only, the thinking behind the quoted source is not considered. The device may be just time filler or it may be a bit misleading as you have clearly pointed out in this instance.

[huckelberry]

..........

The discipline of exegetical history / history of biblical interpretation is actually a relatively recent one. It was essentially pioneered by David Steinmetz (1936-2015) and to some extent his mentor, Heiko Oberman (1930-2001). Steinmetz and Oberman have a number of students who have been influential here; one of them is Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary. The Steinmetz school is pretty derisive of what they call "history of ideas." Muller explains:

According to [the history of ideas] approach, on the assumption that ideas transmit themselves and influence other ideas, apart from real people inhabiting actual historical and cultural contexts, one can elicit an idea from an early disputation of Luther, note its similarity to something that Luther wrote in commentary twenty years later, find a parallel in an early letter of Calvin, paste it on to a similar idea from a sermon preached by Calvin toward the end of his life, and—voila—demonstrate any number of wonderful things, such as a foundational "theology of the cross" motif uniting the Reformers, or perhaps, a deep fear of abysses and labyrinths or of wind and water oppressing the minds of those same Reformers. Luther can contribute to existentialism—or become a Greek orthodox theologian; Calvin can be Barthian or, if you prefer, a Brunnerian. Mind you, those poor players, strutting and fretting about the stage of the sixteenth century did not actually register these issues.

[Richard A. Muller, “David C. Steinmetz and the schola Steinmetziana moderna” (address, American Society of Church History Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 5 January 2006), 4-5; italics his.]

In contrast, what the Steinmetz school advocates for is a "careful, contextual examination of documents and the analysis of documents with a view to the scholarship on the issues and the present state of the question."

So I hope this helps to see what I'm getting at here. A number of Mormons and Mormon apologists read Christian history not to carefully and contextually understand these Christians who lived before them, but in an effort to raid the riches of church history for things that look and sound like Mormonism, which they then draft into their "apostasy" narrative. Essentially, "See, these Christians used to have traces of the truth, but now they are in apostasy." ......

MsJack, Because you took the time to expand the observations you posted I decided to look further into Richard Muller views. I went through a blog article which fit with your quote, expanding upon its idea. He starts referring to his shock upon discussing doctrines with a Christian leader who started claiming belief in 5 point Calvinism but then included a hodgepodge of evangelical views.Muller has a lot of respect for the systematic interrelatedness of doctrine and thought much of the hodgepodge did not fit. Ideas are not just bits and pieces to be picked up or dropped according to taste.

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/

I am guilty of wondering if history of ideas might be stepping stones to new ways of understanding, new realizations of the implication of the foundational basics. I would not like to be engaged in a shallow pot luck of views so take Mullers comments with some respect.(and some caution finding they may contain more authoritarian qualities than I am comfortable with)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t want this bit overlooked:

A number of Mormons and Mormon apologists read Christian history not to carefully and contextually understand these Christians who lived before them, but in an effort to raid the riches of church history for things that look and sound like Mormonism, which they then draft into their "apostasy" narrative. Essentially, "See, these Christians used to have traces of the truth, but now they are in apostasy." They aren't interested in understanding these figures and persons and ideas on their own terms, in their own contexts, and often once one does examine the context, the "parallels" and "bullseyes" rapidly fall apart. Mormons frequently engage in the "history of ideas" approach that Muller derides, even though he does not mention Mormons specifically. I saw so, so much of it in my time at BYU, although I did not know that was what I was seeing at the time.

- Doc