David Bokovoy Proves Again He Is The Premiere LDS Scholar

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Excellent posts on Rational Faiths by David Bokovoy in response to a recent essay by Kent Jackson (frequent contributor to classic FARMS) in which Jackson argues that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of some Deutero-Isaiah material is, in and of itself, proof against the multiple Isaiah theories. (Not theories anymore...)

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness- ... t-jackson/

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness- ... on-part-2/

Funny how we LDS have switched roles with some of the bible-inerrantists. Traditionally, we had a great deal of flexibility in our approach to the Bible's contents. And we even institutionally acknowledged under Joseph Smith that there are errors in its translations that may, at times, disqualify those particular sections as the word of God. Our flexibility with the Bible was a great distinction between us and bible-inerrantists and one of the reasons why we seemed non-Christian to them.

We've seen an interesting evolution take place, however. Under old FARMS, we saw an apologetic insistence for literal readings of the Bible, traditionalist approaches to its stories and narratives, and dismissal of new critical evidence clarifying its origins and constructions. At least when such literalist readings suited their apologetic purposes vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon...

Under classic FARMS, our scorched earth apologetics (at least with respect to the Book of Mormon) had no room for nuance, no interest in much outside of an absolutist either-or proposition. And that has been a horribly unhelpful position for those who present sincere questions about why the Book of Mormon among many other queries - contains some Deutero-Isaiah supposedly included in the text by Nephi (who supposedly got the text from pre-exhiliic brass plates).

Bokovoy's final two paragraphs in his second post are exemplary of why I have so appreciated his scholarship, and why he's influenced how I approach the Church. He writes:

----------

"So what is a believing Latter-day Saint to do? Is there an effective apologetic approach given the weight of this evidence? I believe that there is (maybe are).   I believe that an effective apologetic argument would state, 'I do not know why there is postexilic material in the Book of Mormon, but I do know that I feel connected with God through the book. I therefore believe, even though I do not have an answer.'"

"Another way of approaching this topic would be for Latter-day Saints to recognize that the Book of Mormon is a revelatory work that comes to us through Joseph Smith. The prophet didn’t sit down and work his way through ancient script line upon line. Shouldn’t Latter-day Saints therefore expect that the work would contain inspired prophetic, midrashic use of material known to Joseph Smith, including the material in Isaiah 40-66?"

---------

No demand absolute correctness of his response, no criticism of the questioner for simply asking, no ridiculing the question followed by quotations of an obscure Latin text to academically intimidate the questioner...

No-freaking-wonder former scholars like Peterson, Hamblin, Gee, Schryver (and now young Smoot) have has such conflicts with Bokovoy and were eventually dismissed from the house of smoke and mirrors known as classic FARMS.

God bless him. Please, please support him by buying his amazing volume, "Authoring the Old Testament":

http://gregkofford.com/products/authori ... estament-1

http://mi.byu.edu/book-notes-bokovoy-authoring-1/

https://deseretbook.com/p/authoring-old ... -paperback

[_sock puppet]

WIthout the absolutism, that the Book of Mormon is god's word, how would a reader KNOW to what the Book of Mormon is drawing the reader? Take 'literally god's word' out of that equation, and couldn't it be that reading the Book of Mormon just elicits nice, calming thoughts entirely inside some readers' craniums? Is it god--or just a community of church goers--that it draws a reader closer to?

Conceding that the Book of Mormon is not literally the inerrant 'word of god' then leaves the LDS Church's only hope from the Book of Mormon and people reading it on the interpretation of what the warm fuzzy that some people get from reading the Book of Mormon means. It could be interpreted as so many things. I have felt better and more hopeful each time I've read the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn than I ever did the Book of Mormon.

[_Johannes]

I like what I've seen of Bokovoy, and I'm interested in reading his book.

[_kairos]

Uh i don't know why isaiah that has not even existed when lehi left town found its way in the Book of Mormon but god must have a reason so i will believe-WHAT KIND of taffy pulled soft explanation is that from premier Book of Mormon apologist. gosh if he used his brain and applied his phd he would be out of the church in a new york minute. why are these socalled apologists getting away with this BS.
we got hambone hamlin or skousen saying william tyndale in heaven is channeling to Joseph Smith and donut dan believing in the Book of Mormon because without Mormonism he would be a donut hole.


and by the way thumbing through sir nibley's approach to the Book of Mormon it is so clear he made up about 50 or more percent of his footnotes. read a couple of the german cited ones and the egyptian ones and you know damn well he never had copies or access to those docs and just made up a source when he for instance said ancient babylonian writings give almost perfectly the dimensions and characteristics of the jaredite submarine barges- what pure BS.

[_mackay11]

Funny how we LDS have switched roles with some of the bible-inerrantists. Traditionally, we had a great deal of flexibility in our approach to the Bible's contents. And we even institutionally acknowledged under Joseph Smith that there are errors in its translations that may, at times, disqualify those particular sections as the word of God. Our flexibility with the Bible was a great distinction between us and bible-inerrantists and one of the reasons why we seemed non-Christian to them.

We've seen an interesting evolution take place, however. Under old FARMS, we saw an apologetic insistence for literal readings of the Bible, traditionalist approaches to its stories and narratives, and dismissal of new critical evidence clarifying its origins and constructions. At least when such literalist readings suited their apologetic purposes vis-à-vis the Book of Mormon...

Under classic FARMS, our scorched earth apologetics (at least with respect to the Book of Mormon) had no room for nuance, no interest in much outside of an absolutist either-or proposition. And that has been a horribly unhelpful position for those who present sincere questions about why the Book of Mormon among many other queries - contains some Deutero-Isaiah supposedly included in the text by Nephi (who supposedly got the text from pre-exhiliic brass plates).

Great post. This section rang especially true.

Nearly four years ago I started having questions but still had a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon. I raised a question on MDDB about why Mark 16's "new" verses were replicated in Mormon 9.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/593 ... 6mormon-9/

The answer: the tail doesn't wag the dog. If it's in the Book of Mormon then the Bible passage is correct and original and the scholars are wrong about it being unoriginal and unreliable.

That remained a major "shelved" issue for a long time as no one ever came up with a credible explanation of what a 200AD unoriginal passage in the New Testament was doing in the Book of Mormon.

Eventually, all active Mormons will have to be like Bukovoy... There will be no alternative.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Deutero Isaiah in the Book of Mormon has been a subject I've followed for 15+ years. David is the only LDS scholar to do quality work on the subject in that time frame. And I agree with the OP that is the most competent LDS biblical scholar. I have discussed the issue with him before and I've noticed that his conclusions have evolved over time.


Phaedrus

[_moksha]

The above stance regarding Dr. Bokavoy is one on which this board and the Mormon D&D board agree. Sort of proves he is the Kwisatz Haderach, the one mighty with barbecuing mentioned in the prophecies of the early apologists - the one who can stand in a place of truth they dare not go.

Perhaps over time, he will be able to set our modern Sanhedrin on the right path and shorten the distance it has strayed.

[_Ceeboo]

Perhaps more importantly, Bokovoy is also an outstanding human being!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_moksha]

Perhaps more importantly, Bokovoy is also an outstanding human being!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Amen Brother Ceeboo. Dr. Bokovoy faced the powers of the former Maxwell Institute and stayed true to himself. It takes fortitude not to kiss the prelate's ring nor issue strong oaths against the current occupants of that institute.

[_Symmachus]

If Nephi could receive prophecy with astonishing specificity—Christopher Columbus, the revolutionary war, and Joseph Smith's first name—then surely Isaiah could have known about Cyrus and the Persians with a similar degree of specificity.