Category: Uncategorized

I have posted a review of The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton, on my blog.
http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com/?p=587

Faith Promoting Rumor is happy to learn of the upcoming Faith and Knowledge conference. For more details about the conference, visit the website www.faithandknowledge.org.

 

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL

CAMBRIDGE, MA
FEBRUARY 24-25, 2017

The Faith and Knowledge Conference was established in 2007 to bring together LDS graduate students in religious studies and related disciplines in order to explore the interactions between religious faith and scholarship. During the past five conferences, students have shared their experiences in the church and the academy and the new ideas that have emerged as a result. Papers and conversations provided thought-provoking historical, exegetical, and theoretical insights and compelling models of how to reconcile one’s discipleship with scholarly discipline.

In keeping with these past objectives, we invite graduate students and early career scholars in religious studies and related disciplines (e.g., women’s studies, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, history, literature, etc.) to join the conversation. We welcome proposals addressing historical, exegetical, and theoretical issues that arise from the intersections of LDS religious experience and academic scholarship. Final papers presented at the conference should be brief, pointed comments of ten to fifteen minutes. Please visit faithandknowledge.org for more information on themes and topics explored at previous years’ conferences.

Proposals should include a paper abstract of no more than 250 words and a brief CV. Please submit proposals by December 2, 2016 to Christopher Jones at chrisjones13 AT gmail PERIOD com. Notifications of acceptance or rejection will be sent by December 16, 2016.

The registration fee will be $25 for graduate students and $50 for early career scholars. For individuals whose paper proposals are accepted, hotel accommodations for two nights and all meals on Saturday will be provided; travel expenses will be reimbursed based on a sliding scale.

Further information will be posted on the website faithandknowledge.org.

Committee:

Richard Lyman Bushman, Columbia University
Kim Berkey, Harvard Divinity School
Zachary Davis, Harvard Divinity School
Daniel Gullotta, Yale Divinity School
Rachael Givens Johnson, University of Virginia
Christopher Jones, Brigham Young University
Joseph Stuart, University of Utah

I have a new post up on a book that treats the myth of God’s combat with the Sea/Leviathan

Review of Debra Scoggins Ballentine, The Conflict Myth and the Biblical Tradition (2015)

I have a new article up on my blog about the meaning of the verb qny in the divine epithet qny ʾrṣ, variously translated “Creator,” “Begetter,” or “Owner of the earth.” I argue that the verb never means “to create” in West Semitic and that all attested usages can be explained on the assumption that they derive from a single root with the basic meaning “to acquire, come into possession.” The correct translation of Hebrew qnh šmym wʾrṣ in Gen 14: 19, 22 is “Owner of heaven and earth.”

If anyone is interested, I have a new post up on my site, which is a review of Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity, ed. Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson.

Review of Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity, ed. Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson

Over the weekend I became aware of a piece written by Stephen Smoot at the Interpreter that reminded me the Book of Mormon Wars are unfortunately alive and well in some quarters. Uncompromisingly, Smoot declares BoM historicity to be an all or nothing affair and identifies those who promote an inspired fiction theory as not only intellectually compromised but faithless to boot. In my opinion, this kind of rhetoric does a real disservice to the Mormon community, since instead of trying to contribute to our understanding of the BoM as a literary, historical, and even religious text, the focus changes to polemical posturing and the drawing of ideological lines. As a result, Latter-day Saints who have honestly come to the conclusion that the BoM is a product of the 19th century and yet value aspects of their Mormon identity and community are stigmatized and made to feel unwelcome, while more conservative and apologetic minded members are encouraged to take a more aggressive and dogmatic stance.

Such rhetoric is not Christlike nor helpful.

Contrast this with the roundtable discussion on BoM historicity that occurred yesterday at Sunstone, in which multiple perspectives were aired in an environment of respect and openness, including David Bokovy’s presentation that the BoM can be accepted as both fiction and meaningful scriptural text.

 

Check out an interesting new blog analyzing the influence of the KJV on the scripture produced by Joseph Smith: “For Thus It Is Written”: Joseph Smith’s Use of Biblical Texts

 

Recently the Interpreter blog has published a few responses to my articles exploring the significance of the mention of Nahom in the BoM, first a brief comment by S. Kent Brown and then a much longer two-part article by Jeff Lindsay. Not surprisingly, both found my thesis that the story of Lehi’s journey originated as imaginative mythological literature and that the reference to Nahom reflects dependence on a map to be unpersuasive. Still, I appreciate that they were generous enough to acknowledge that my discussion was well researched and did not dismiss me out of hand.

 

So I thought it would be appropriate to briefly respond to both statements.

 

First, as I read Brown I can’t see that he engages substantively with any of my specific arguments, but merely repeats the same kinds of things he has been saying for almost two decades now, e.g. JS could not have known X, could not possibly have had access to a map, etc. As a result, I don’t feel a need to address these points again. If someone writes argument X, Y, Z in disagreement with argument A, B, C, then it does not do to respond to X, Y, Z, by repeating A, B, C.

 

More interesting is Lindsay’s brave attempt to systematically examine and refute all the major points I bring up in the course of my discussion of Nahom and the BoM. From what I can tell, he seems to have put quite a bit of effort into summarizing and analyzing my arguments (from what he perceives to be a faithful perspective, of course). In striking contrast to Brown, Lindsay has tried to address everything.

 

Unfortunately, Lindsay is not a historian or biblical scholar, and as a consequence his analysis is shot through with methodological problems and fallacious reasoning. In his zeal to defend the BoM, he has adopted a shotgun approach, thinking any response is better than no response. In general Lindsay relies on his own common sense knowledge and limited personal study to affirm the validity of contemporary apologetic interpretations. His counter responses range from “this issue has been adequately dealt with in a recent publication” or an imagined hypothetical where college students are asked to draw a route from Jerusalem to the ocean to the reader should exercise more faith or biblical scholarship is biased and cannot be trusted.

 

More than anything, Lindsay is long on assertion and short on critical analysis. Because his interest is in providing an answer rather than seeking out understanding, he repeatedly underestimates the complexity of the historical, literary, and philological issues involved, selectively cites non-LDS biblical scholarship when it serves a particular apologetic end, engages in constant rhetorical posturing, and tends to respond to the argument he hears rather than the one I’m actually saying. The BoM is afforded a strong presumption of historicity, such that if any alternative explanation for apparent fictionality or anachronism can be imagined, then that explanation is to be preferred.

 

On the subject of maps, I agree with Lindsay about their rarity. In a strictly historical sense, the likelihood of JS encountering one in rural Western New York wasn’t very high. But my argument for dependence on a map doesn’t actually rise or fall on the question of accessibility, but on a combination of other factors, e.g. the BoM’s fictional character, the vague geography of the journey through Arabia vs. the precision of the location Nahom, the similarity between Ireantum and Erythraeum, other map features, etc. I assume that there were more maps available to JS in his world than we have record. Also, Rick Grunder has informed me that near to the time JS was dictating 1 Nephi he may have visited the Reynolds Arcade in Rochester, New York, which seems to form the material background for parts of the story of Lehi’s dream. At the time the Arcade was an exceptionally large and lavish building that featured a library, rare maps, and periodicals.

 

Ultimately, I don’t think what Lindsay offers does anything to seriously undermine the general or specifics of my argument regarding Nahom, so for now I will leave my presentation of the evidence to stand as is.

 

One final comment about biblical minimalism. Lindsay begins his critique by suggesting that the reason I have adopted an unnecessarily critical attitude toward the BoM is because I am a secular biblical minimalist, and similar-like accusations are made throughout. For example:

“This reveals one of the great problems in the branches of modern biblical criticism that seek to minimize the historical value of scriptural records. When a tale has strong literary functions (such as parallels to the Exodus) and high theological or symbolic meaning, it is immediately assumed to be fiction.”

“An evaluation of an ancient text needs to begin with understanding what the text claims to be, not what modern scholars demand of it, especially when the demands are motivated by a desire to minimalize and undermine its historicity.”

“This inflexibility in interpretation of a text, insisting on meanings that render it unlikely or impossible instead of providing practical solutions for unclear or missing elements, is frequently encountered in the methodology of “higher criticism” of the Bible.”

“RT’s approach nicely illustrates some of the flawed methodology of minimalists in the field of “Higher Criticism” who prefer to look for parallels in late sources to establish late dates for scriptural texts rather than give the ancient texts a fair treatment, while also zealously minimalizing evidences for plausibility.”

“Some are frustrated with how they are minimized with hairsplitting, reading flaws and fiction into a text that is rooted in real terrain.”

“There is a pervasive bias against the Bible.”

“In my opinion, RT’s treatment here displays the mindset and training of “biblical minimalists,” who use what they feel are advanced tools of biblical scholarship to whittle away evidence and eviscerate unwelcome documents.”

“The evidence from Arabia is such a gift, in my opinion, and must not be minimalized, in spite of secular imperatives to do so at all costs.”

 

It is difficult to overemphasize how preposterous and uninformed these statements are. There is no widespread or deep seated bias against the claims of the Bible in academic biblical scholarship, nor a desire to minimize its historicity. Rather, in developing hypotheses about the origin of the biblical literature, scholars seek to understand and explain. They advance evidence-based arguments. To suggest that scholars have some secular need to prove the Bible incorrect only shows how unfamiliar Lindsay is with the disciplines and methodologies of contemporary biblical studies.

 

His repeated references to biblical minimalists is a case in point. The moniker of “biblical minimalism” arose in the 90s to describe a trend in biblical studies to see the Bible as having been composed at a later period than had previously been thought. The scholars who advanced these claims were derogatorily called “minimalists” by more conservative scholars, the label minimalism referring to their views about the value of the Bible as a historical source. However, in fact modern study of the Bible has always been rather minimalist in seeking to explain the Bible as a human artifact, and the claim that there ever was a distinct and ideologically coherent group of minimalist scholars has now turned into something of a chimera (Davies 2015). Further, many of the interpretive priorities of this so-called minimalism (e.g. late-dating, Bible as secondary historical source, etc.) have in recent years become broadly accepted in the field and supported by detailed historical, comparative, and archaeological analysis (e.g. Kratz 2015).

 

For myself, I have no commitment to any secular imperative to minimalize biblical history. It seems that Lindsay misread one of my comments to suggest I didn’t believe Jeremiah or Ezekiel were historical persons. I actually meant that the “books” of Jeremiah and Ezekiel didn’t exist or weren’t written before the exile. In any case, I think the Bible is endlessly fascinating as literature and as a scholar my only commitment is to discerning the proper historical and cultural contexts in which it can be most fruitfully interpreted and explained.

——————-

 

Davies, P. R. 2015. The History of Ancient Israel: A Guide for the Perplexed (Bloomsbury).

Kratz, R. 2015. Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah (Oxford University).

 

The Church is largely to blame for the faith crisis among segments of the Mormon community. It promoted a black and white worldview where Truth is self-evident, and it supported this view with “faith-promoting” narratives that ignored the messy facts of history. One of the fruits of this approach is having this very mentality reflected back on the Church—when joining the Church is an existential choice, leaving it can likewise be existential. Disillusionment with the Church oddly does not necessarily lead to disillusionment with its black-and-white positivist worldview. So, many of the disaffected are “Truth-seekers”—just following wherever the (self-evident) evidence takes them.  Continue reading ““That’s not how the Church Presents Itself”: An Irreverent Response”

We are pleased to offer the following guest post from friend of the blog “Steve.” (Update: An earlier version of this post did not preserve correct formatting for the analysis). 

Modern biblical scholarship has developed several literary tools to help understand the origins and development of scriptural texts. Among the most prominent are source analysis and redaction analysis. (Redaction is a fancy word for “editing.”) These can be complicated endeavors, especially when they are applied to ancient documents in dead languages, yet the basic ideas are not difficult. Source analysis seeks to identify the written sources utilized by later writers, and redaction analysis looks at the way those authors purposefully adapted those sources.

Source analysis and redaction analysis can be useful in trying to understand other texts as well, and here I want to apply them to the recently released Doctrinal Mastery Core Document. Elder Ballard mentioned this new program in his Feb. 26, 2016 address to CES teachers, and it appears that the initiative has been in preparation for some time, since the printed manual has an “English approval” date of 2/15. The manual begins with an essay for CES instructors, “Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge,” which includes guidelines that could be very helpful: 1) act in faith, 2) examine concepts and questions with an eternal perspective, and 3) seek understanding through divinely appointed sources. As a seminary teacher myself, I appreciate the insight and wisdom here, including

• “Whatever the source of our questions may be, we have been blessed with the ability to think and reason and to have the Lord’s influence expand our minds and deepen our understanding.”
• “During times when we may not immediately find answers to our questions, it is helpful to remember that although Heavenly Father has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation, He has not yet revealed all truth.”
• “It may also help to examine historical questions in the proper historical context by considering the culture and norms of the time period rather than imposing current perspectives and attitudes.”
• And in responding to students’ questions, “Listen attentively before you respond, seeking to clarify and understand the actual questions they are asking.” and “offer to search for answers, and then follow through by sharing what you learn.”

The majority of the handbook, however, consists of a summary of nine key Doctrinal Topics: The Godhead, The Plan of Salvation, The Atonement of Jesus Christ, The Restoration, Prophets and Revelation, Priesthood and Priesthood Keys, Ordinances and Covenants, Marriage and Family, and Commandments. Many readers will recognize this list from the “Come Follow Me” curriculum for youth Sunday School, Young Women, and Aaronic Priesthood that was introduced in 2012, along with the “Basic Doctrines” section of the Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual that was released that same year.

Here is where scholarly tools can be handy in tracking the development of what seems to be a churchwide, top-down effort to consolidate and reinforce LDS doctrinal teaching. Source analysis is not a problem since the sources are readily identifiable. The “Doctrinal Topics” section of the Doctrinal Mastery Core Document (2016) appears to have been adapted from the “Basic Doctrines” section of the Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual (2012; pp. 572-76), and in any case, Doctrinal Mastery itself cites the ultimate source for both: True to the Faith (2004). In addition, there are passages that have been adapted from Preach My Gospel (2004).

Redaction analysis comes into play when we compare Doctrinal Mastery to the BOM Seminary Teacher Manual and then to True to the Faith and Preach My Gospel—identifying key differences, noting changes in emphasis from 2004 to 2016, and then making hypotheses concerning the motivations for those modifications. The last step is admittedly the most speculative, but I think that the evidence is clear enough to allow for some educated guesses.

The first step, comparing the 2016 Doctrinal Mastery to the 2012 BOM Seminary Teacher Manual is easily accomplished by copying the relevant sections into Word documents and then using the “Compare Documents” feature. The two are similar enough to yield immediate results. For instance, the information on God the Father has been modified as follows (underlining indicates additions; strikethroughs are deletions):

God the Father is the Supreme Ruler of the universeBeing whom we worship. He is the Father of our spirits (see Hebrews 12:9). He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He is also a God of perfect mercy, kindness, and charity.just, merciful, and kind. God loves each of His children perfectly, and all are alike unto Him (see 2 Nephi 26:33). His work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.

So there’s a change in divine title (actually a return to the TTTF wording), a simplification of phrasing, and the addition to two scriptural allusions.

There are a fair number of revisions, but significant deletions from 2012 to 2016 include

• We are to use the earth’s resources with wisdom, judgment, and thanksgiving (see D&C
78:19).
• [The Fall] has a twofold direction—downward yet forward. In addition to introducing physical and spiritual death, it gave us the opportunity to be born on the earth and to learn and progress.
• [a detailed explanation of the Apostasy]
• The word baptism comes from a Greek word meaning to dip or immerse. Immersion is symbolic of the death of a person’s sinful life and his or her rebirth into a spiritual life, dedicated to the service of God and His children. It is also symbolic of death and resurrection.
• [God’s commandments include] having a spirit of gratitude (see D&C 78:19)

And among the additions are

• Gender is an essential characteristic of each person’s premortal, mortal, and eternal
​identity and purpose. The Fall In the Garden of Eden, God joined Adam and Eve
​in marriage [followed by several more sentences that emphasize the nature and ​consequences of the Fall]
• More than passive belief, faith true faith in Jesus Christ leads to action and is expressed by the way we live
• [an explanation of Zion]
• Keeping the commandments will always bring happiness and blessings from the Lord

What is perhaps most striking, however, is the increased emphasis on Church authority, as can be seen in these modifications:

• [Prophets] denounce sin and, warn of its consequences., and help us avoid deception
• If we faithfully receive and obey the teachings of the President of the Church, God will bless us to overcome deception and evil (see D&C 21:4–6).
• IndividualsAs we study the words of prophets, we can learn truth and receive guidance. While God gives revelation through prophets to guide all of His children, individuals can receive revelation to help them with their specific needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help strengthen their testimonies. Most revelations to leaders and members of the Church come through impressions and thoughts from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost speaks to our minds and hearts in a still, small voice (see D&C 8:2–3). However, personal inspiration from the Lord will never contradict the revelation God gives through His prophets.
• Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The President of the Church is the only person authorized to exercise all of those priesthood keys.
• All of the blessings, ordinances, covenants, and organizations of the Church are administered under the authority of the President of the Church, who is the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The development of LDS doctrinal discourse from True to the Faith and Preach My Gospel to Doctrinal Mastery is a little more difficult to track since it requires comparing paragraphs that are scattered throughout the 2004 publications, but the differences are even more pronounced. (It should, however, be kept in mind that True to the Faith consists of a series of short essays, while Doctrinal Mastery is a cut-and-paste document that often lacks the clarity, argumentative flow, and precision of the former.)

First, a few stylistic notes:

• In every instance, “flesh and bones” has been changed to the singular “flesh and bone,” which is odd since the former expression is scriptural (5 times in the NT, BOM, and D&C), while the latter is a non-scriptural innovation.
• TTTF conscientiously used gender-inclusive language. In 190 pages, the word “mankind” appeared 8 times, always in scripture quotations. DM uses “mankind” seven times in eight pages, never in quotations. One wonders why “people” didn’t work. A stark example occurs where TTTF “A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people” is changed to DM “A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and man.”
• The new title “Prophet of the Restoration” is used twice in DM to refer to Joseph Smith. It never appeared in TTTF.
• DM is especially fond of the term “saving ordinances,” which appears 6 times in its eight pages; in TTTF “saving ordinances” are mentioned only 5 times, scattered across nearly 200 pages.

Changes to subsections:

• The TTTF essay on “Plan of Salvation” was expanded to include subsections on “The Creation” and “The Fall”; a section on “Blessings through Knowledge of the Plan,” focusing on reassurance, meaning, and joy, was deleted.
• DM drops the helpful subheadings from the TTTF essay on “Atonement of Jesus Christ” (e.g., “Universal Redemption from the Fall” and “Salvation from Our Sins”) and instead inserts “Faith in Jesus Christ” and “Repentance.” There are, however, no subsections anywhere on baptism or the gift of the Holy Ghost, as one might expect from the 4th Article of Faith. (Contrast this with PMG Lesson 3: The Gospel of Jesus Christ, where faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end are all given equal weight.)

A few significant changes:

• The explanations in TTTF and PMG of how the atonement of Christ is related to both spiritual and physical death are much clearer than in DM, where the description of the Atonement is somewhat opaque by comparison.
• The section on the Great Apostasy in DM is shorter and softer in its implications, observing that “Although there were many good and honest people who worshipped God according to the light they possessed and received answers to their prayers, the world was left without divine revelation through living prophets.”
​• Unlike TTTF, DM includes an explanation of “dispensation,” which is adapted from
​PMG, p. 44.
• There are a couple of new references to women in the “Priesthood and Priesthood Keys” section of DM: “All who serve in the Church—men and women—are called under the direction of one who holds priesthood keys,” and “Those who are ordained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods enter into the oath and covenant of the priesthood. . . . Women are likewise promised the blessings of exaltation as they are faithful to the covenants they have made with the Lord.”
• In TTTF, the covenant renewed during the sacrament is always that of baptism; in DM there appears to be a doctrinal innovation by which the sacrament renews all our covenants, with baptism and the oath and covenant of the priesthood being specifically mentioned.
• There is a new paragraph in DM that has no precedent in either TTTF or PG, or even the BOM Seminary Teacher Manual: “One of the earliest commandments given to man was to keep the Sabbath day holy. God commands His children to honor Him by doing His will rather than our own on the Sabbath, and He promises great blessings to those who keep His day holy (see Isaiah 58:13–14).” While the new emphasis on the Sabbath may be laudable, the opening assertion is simply not true. According to the scriptures, although the Lord honored the Sabbath at the Creation, he did not command humans to do so until the time of Moses—long after the many commandments given to Adam and Eve, Enoch, Noah, the Brother of Jared, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Overall Assessment

Even though there are a few helpful clarifications in DM (for instance, on the concept of dispensations), in general it appears that the new document was not as carefully written or as well thought-out as its predecessors. And many of the choices made in excerpting, modifying, and adding to TTTF and PMG seem to have been motivated by recent concerns, probably arising from difficult issues in Church history, same-sex marriage, and women and the priesthood. Compared to its sources, DM puts much more emphasis on obedience and Church authority, as opposed to agency, personal revelation, or the joys of living the gospel. For instance, the section on “Prophets and Revelation” in DM is nearly entirely concerned with revelation to Church leaders, while the four-page essay on “Revelation” in TTTF is mostly about personal inspiration. In fact, there is very little in DM about the role of the Holy Ghost in providing guidance or helping individuals discern truth from error. (It would be interesting to test these observations by comparing the new Doctrinal Mastery scriptures with the current Scriptural Mastery scriptures. Out of a total of 100, twenty-three have been replaced.)

In reading nearly any section of TTTF alongside the corresponding DM paragraph, the differences are striking. True to the Faith is written in the second-person voice, addressing youth directly and individually. It quotes scripture, offers reasons, acknowledges feelings, and suggests applications. In general, its tone is one of gentleness, persuasion, and invitation. Doctrinal Mastery takes the form of more hard-edged, propositional statements, which can make it sound like a creed or a catechism. Some of the disparity is due to length, of course, but even the relatively concise doctrinal summaries in Preach My Gospel are, at least to my ear, much warmer and more appealing.

There is always a danger of reductionism when choosing just a few key themes from the rich teachings of the scriptures and the Restoration. That is to say, any system of belief that is constructed from a set of doctrinal statements may answer some questions or make sense to some believers, while leaving out other aspects of our religion that speak more powerfully to young people with different concerns or sensibilities. In any case, the challenge of helping the next generation of Latter-day Saints develop and sustain faith is one of the most daunting, and important, tasks of our time. However effective or ineffective Doctrinal Mastery may turn out to be, we are fortunate that True to the Faith and Preach My Gospel are still readily available as resources.