Hard to imagine, but humor me:
If “Dr. Shades,� an average Church member, a Latter-day Saint apostle, and a typically prideful FARMS elitist were conversing together, and an interviewer walked up to them and asked the following ten questions, whose answers would most frequently make him the odd man out? Would there be any basis for claiming, from his answers to the following questions, that one of the three remaining after the subtraction of the “odd man out� actually belonged to a wholly different religious faith than the other two?
(1) Is there a God?
(2) Is Jesus Christ divine?
(3) Does redemption come through Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone?
(4) Were there literal historical Nephites?
(5) Were there real gold plates?
(6) Did Joseph Smith see the Father and the Son?
(7) Did John the Baptist, and, later, Peter, James, and John restore the priesthood?
(8) Do the contemporary prophets and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys of priesthood authority on earth?
(9) Is there life after death?
(10) Was Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?

Okay, now humor me:

If a Latter-day Saint apostle and a FARMS elitist were conversing together, and an interviewer walked up to them and asked the following questions, would the answers harmonize?

(1) When science contradicts the prophets (regarding the age of the earth, for example), which/who is right?
(2) When LDS apologists (F.A.R.M.S. and F.A.I.R., for example) contradict the prophets, who is right?
(3) Do the terms “Lamanite” and “Native American” refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms interchangeable?
(4) Was Noah’s flood local or global?
(5) When Lehi arrived in the Americas, were there lots of non-Jaredite Asiatic inhabitants already present?
(6) When discussing the words of the prophets, is God displeased if we say “it was only his opinion?”
(7) Did the Nephites make their last stand against the Lamanites on a hill in Central America or on a hill in New York?
(8) Is binding Mormon doctrine to be found between the covers of the four Standard Works only, or can it be found elsewhere?
(9) Which is most likely to lead us to the truth: To “filter” a prophet’s words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge, or to take his words at face value?
(10) Do a prophet’s words apply to everyone he’s addressing, or do his words sometimes not apply to some of the people he’s addressing?
(11) If a married couple uses birth control, is God displeased?
(12) Did human beings evolve, or were Adam & Eve the first–and parentless–humans?
(13) Is a prophet a foreordained man of the highest moral caliber, or is he not necessarily any better than his societal average?

Someone else writes:

I wonder if you are the same “Dr. Shades� of “exmormon.com� fame?

As far as I know, I’m the only “Dr. Shades” of any “fame,” exmormon.org or otherwise.

If so, I wonder why you would even bother with a site like T&S.

Because someone e-mailed me and pointed out that this discussion was taking place, a topic about which I have some interest.

Truly inadvertent. You’ll notice that every one of the threads that lost comments lost them immediately after a comment with a long string of dashes: “——”

That happened because Movable Type uses strings of dashes to export entries. The import program saw long strings and read them to mean that a particular post was done. It then looked for the next post (introduced through known tags), and intervening text was lost.

It did happen to more of the longer threads. I suspect that this is because they are more likely (having more comments overall) to have at least one string of dashes somewhere that will get read as an end signal.

(Side note — I think there is a moderate amount of thematic unity to the threads that errored, and I think I know why. As I’ve gone through this process, I’ve learned who writes with dashes. It’s the same commenters, over and again, whose comments caused certain threads to import improperly. Of course, this isn’t to assign blame — there’s no way that they could have known that their comment style would intriduce some errors into a future software transfer — but it does explain somewhat why many of the threads on similar topics seem to have had errors: It’s largely because they were attracting the same particular commenters.)

Was the loss of these comments really “inadvertent”? Given that a thread must have at least 140 comments (presently) to make the “Most Popular Entries” on the sidebar, and given that the comments just “happened” to be lost after 140, and given the “heat” generated by this particular thread, I had assumed you had intentionally deleted the later comments so as to preclude this thread from qualifying for the sidebar.

Aaron B

Juliann,
This from the CGU website: “The faculty employs a rich diversity of critical methodologies for the study of a wide variety of texts, practices, and traditions from across the globe and from many different eras. The school offers masters and doctoral degrees as well as research opportunities in Hebrew Bible, History of Christianity, New Testament, Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Women’s Studies in Religion, and Theology, Ethics, and Culture. The various programs of study in religion are designed to prepare students for careers in research, teaching, and intellectual leadership.”
Also this: “Members of the department are widely recognized for successfully combining traditional modes of scholarship with new methodologies in the social sciences and the humanities. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of academic programs at Claremont Graduate University, students and faculty in the field of religion may avail themselves of a broader forum of inquiry, including literature, history, education, and philosophy.”
Assuming that this is what CGU is all about (which I trust that it is, given that it is how it self-describes), I think its decision to establish a Mormon Studies program based on the work of FARMS and other LDS scholars is both commendable and worthwhile. (Please let me know if this is not a direct enough answer to your question.)
Kaimi’s original post asks whether or not the development of the academic study of Mormonism may present unintended consequences–a division into elite and common members. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusions (or, more accurately, his worries), I don’t think anyone here has asserted or implied that CGU should start teaching the equivalent of Sunday School lessons in lieu of the current curriculum.
That is why I say you protest too much–because you are defending an accusation that was never made (i.e., that the work of FARMS is not sufficiently scholarly to merit academic study at CGU). At least I assume that this is the accusation you are defending against given your defense of FARMS as “adequate for inclusion in a Mormon Studies program.”
Perhaps I have assumed incorrectly and that you are defending a different accusation. If so, please let me know.
Comment by: Randy at May 11, 2004 01:16 PM

*****

Kaimi, I think the only real issue is that you seem to think it wrong to think various individuals as ill informed even if they are ill informed. That’s what I’m having a bit of a cognitive dissonance over. How am I to reconcile this?
Regarding the intro to the Book of Mormon. That is a relatively recent addition. I suspect that the “principle ancestors” bit will be removed in a future addition. I agree that it is unfortunate.
Comment by: clarkgoble at May 11, 2004 01:16 PM

*****

Randy: “It is one thing to be somehow distantly related to a group of people, it is quite another to be “principally” related to them.”
In the sense that Lehi is, say, ninety or more generations in the past, any living Amerindian is at most “distantly” related to him, whether one posits other people in the land upon Lehi’s arrival or one doesn’t.
The usual sense of the phrase “distantly related,” however (at least as I hear it), implies lack of direct descent. That is, I’m “distantly related” to my fourth cousin (whoever she may be), but I’m not “distantly related” to my greatgrandmother. I’m directly descended from her.
In positing Lehi as the ancestor of the Amerindians, people (I think) quite frequently have an unrealistic picture in their minds that a moment’s thought would prove untenable. I have two parents, four grandparents, eight greatgrandparents, sixteen greatgreatgrandparents, and so on. The numbers mount up very rapidly. Yet, although my ancestors number, quite conservatively speaking, in the thousands, no one of them is any less my ancestor, and I am no less the descendant of any one of them.
Another way of looking at the matter is to consider the case of the “Israelites.” Obviously, Jacob, or Israel, was a pure “Israelite.” Genetically, however, his sons were only 50% “Israelite.” And what of his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh? Joseph didn’t marry an “Israelite”; he married an Egyptian. So Ephraim and Manasseh were 25% Israelite, genetically speaking. And so it goes.
Randy: “The introduction to the Book of Mormon does not state that most American Indians can trace back their ancestry, at some point, to the Lamanites. It states that the Lamanites “are the *principal* ancestors of the American Indians.” How does one square this statement with the limited geography hypothesis?”
Some believe that the “principal ancestors” statement can be reconciled with the scriptural and ethnohistorical facts. (Scott Woodward, a BYU DNA researcher who has sometimes been involved in this issue, tells me that he’s comfortable with it, though I have not had the time to hear his argument on the matter.) I personally make no effort at reconciliation, though I wouldn’t mind such reconciliation proving feasible. As things stand, though, I think the statement simply wrong. At a minimum, it’s misleading. I believe it is unfortunate and expect that it will be rectified. It goes beyond what the Book of Mormon text says. I’m told by a reasonably reliable source that it was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie when he was serving as a member of the Church’s scripture committee that was supervising the preparation of the new edition of the Book of Mormon, and that it was retained by him despite the warnings of one or more other members of the committee. (Robert J. Matthews, the former dean of religious education at BYU, is the specific objector I’ve heard named.)
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 11, 2004 02:10 PM

*****

One of the several problems that I’ve had in making sense of Kaimi’s position stems from what I take to be his implicit claim that the recognition of differing levels of knowledge and sophistication among Church members (at least on matters related to scripture and Church history) is in itself reprehensible and divisive, so that virtue in this regard consists in believing, or, minimally, professing to believe, the obviously counterfactual proposition that such differing levels do not exist. But that strikes me, in its turn, as an endorsement of either intellectual error or intellectual dishonesty, which (I’m confident) is not what he intends to advocate.
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 11, 2004 02:29 PM

*****

Dan,
Again, I greatly appreciate your comments. Let me take this back to Kaimi’s question: “What are we to believe when a FARMS scholar states that evidence shows that the limited geography hypothesis is correct, but a general authority [e.g., Elder McConkie in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon no less] refers to all Native Americans as Lamanites?” Given your latest explanation, I don’t see how we can “believe both.” As you say, the statement of Elder McConkie is “simply wrong.”
Frankly, as someone still in the process of understanding “Level C,” I have much symphathy for Kaimi’s self-described state of confusion “as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs.”
Comment by: Randy at May 11, 2004 02:47 PM

*****

Perhaps some of the discussion here is flowing from an (unconscious?) assumption like the following-
The Church (or Deseret Book) publishes what’s important about the Gospel. Therefore, FARMS/Sunstone/name your group here, since they publish things notably different from those sources, represent an alternate “gospel” in competition with the “official gospel” (as articulated by the Ensign or General Conference).
That, at least, is how Shades and some members would like to categorize things. (I’ve heard anecdotal stories from trustworthy sources that indicate a few BYU religion professors think that FARMS is attempting to “co-opt” the gospel the same way Islamic fundamentalists have hijacked Islam, or Greek philosphy “perverted” Christianity. In other words, they’re preaching an alternate version that threatens or competes with orthodoxy (Shades’ “Chapel Mormons”)
I suspect Kaimi is articulating a a lesser version of this idea, though with loaded terminology.
For myself, I don’t see such competition. I think many members are ignorant of Deuteronomic reforms and post-manifesto polygamy and theoretical Book of Mormon onomastics, but I also think that that ignorance doesn’t matter. Mostly.
Instead, I see different needs being met. I see FAIR and FARMS as defending the orthox basics of the gospel, particularly modern prophets (Starting with Joseph Smitha and all that flows from him being a prophet) and the Book of Mormon. (I see Pres. Hinckley’s invitation for FARMS to join BYU as evidence that the purveyors of “Chapel Mormonism” read and approve of their stuff. I have good sourecs that tell me Pres. Hinckley wishes more members would read similar things on their own.) I see Sunstone and Dialogue as providing a community for those struggling who need some kind of way to blow off theological steam (though I think they have gone too far in teh past and may again.) For those who are happy with their lessons, their KJV and DEseret Book, good for them. Wish I could be so content. I think the Church is starting to recognize the different needs people have, as evidenced by the embracing of FARMS at BYU, the writing of the MMM book, and some other things. I recall a Dialogue article about European members who wanted more LDS literature (written by a Belge linguistics professor, if memory serves, significant to me because I served in Belgium.) The visiting general authority was asked about it, and replied that the scriptures and Ensign shoudl be sufficient for anyone. The irony was that his wife was reading a Hugh Nibley book, and the son had a Jack Weyland novel.
Comment by: Ben S at May 11, 2004 03:04 PM

*****

Randy, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with a GA being wrong even if, overall, in theological pronouncements they are typically right. Further I don’t think a typical member is being irrational by taking McConkie at his word. However they are ill informed, both of the facts as well as the range of GA opinions on the subject.
Does this lead to a divide? In certain ways. There are those familiar with the issues and those who aren’t. What I object to with the “chapel vs. internet Mormon” dichotomy is the usefulness of this way of understanding. As I mentioned, it simply ignores issues of vagueness and strength of belief. Further it confuses issues which most agree are peripheral with core issues.
Comment by: clark at May 11, 2004 03:06 PM

*****

I should have added, that FARMS meets the need of members looking for *orthodox in-depth scholarly discussion of LDS scriptures.
*lest we quibble about what constitutes orthodoxy, I would clarify by saying that no one reads JBMS or FRB expecting to find arguments againt the BoM or Joseph Smith whereas one regularly finds such in other LDS journals.
Comment by: Ben S at May 11, 2004 03:09 PM

*****

Dan,
I hadn’t seen your second post when I posted. Sorry to seem like ships passing in the night. As to your second post, I agree with you that Kaimi almost certainly was not advocating intellectual error. I think his original concern (I’m putting aside some of his later concerns) relates to figuring out how to reconcile certain intellectual and “common” views of church history and the scriptures. As I noted above, I have some sympathy for that concern. I must admit that I feel a bit different — in a way that is hard to describe — now that I know some of the things I know. These things have not weakened my testimony, but I do look at things differently. I don’t find this to be a problem on Sunday, but it is only because I really don’t think about these things on Sunday. Instead, the focus there is on the basics (e.g., faith, the atonement, etc., etc.)–particularly in my ward in downtown Atlanta. On Sunday, I feel perfectly at home among the members, both the elites and the commoners; we are all reading from the same sheet of music. During the week, however, I feel like my reading and studying of the limited geography hypothesis, the Adam-God theory, etc., etc., pull me further away from them rather than closer to them. I suppose this is a fault that reflects more on me than on the value of studying these issues. In any event, I say all this to confess my confusion, like Kaimi, “as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs.”
Comment by: Randy at May 11, 2004 03:18 PM

*****

To correct Daniel Peterson, Kaimi never called anyone or anything “reprehensible,” that’s your term. Kaimi merely noted seemingly inconsistent beliefs among different groups within the Church, raised the possibility that some division of one sort or another might be a result, and professed that he was “confused.” He’s certainly not alone in that reaction.
Randy and Ben S seem to have brought some sanity to the discussion. Randy notes that confusion is perhaps the appropriate response given the inconsistent statements he cites in his post. And Ben S sounds the hopeful note that members are starting to realize that the Mormon umbrella is wide enough to allow people with differing views to happily coexist in friendly fellowship. I think that’s a necessary development because the differing views are not going away anytime soon. I’ll cast one vote for the “bigger Mormon umbrella” model.
Comment by: Dave at May 11, 2004 03:32 PM

*****

Randy: “Let me take this back to Kaimi’s question: ‘What are we to believe when a FARMS scholar states that evidence shows that the limited geography hypothesis is correct, but a general authority [e.g., Elder McConkie in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon no less] refers to all Native Americans as Lamanites?’ Given your latest explanation, I don’t see how we can ‘believe both.’ As you say, the statement of Elder McConkie is ‘simply wrong.’”
I think a solid case can be made, once the initial assumption is granted that there were Lamanites in the first place, for the proposition that all or virtually all Amerindians are descendants of the Lamanites, in a genetic sense. (The term “Lamanite” has other, non-biological, senses too, though, so the argument for Lamanite genetics may well establish more than an advocate of the Book of Mormon really needs.)
Elder McConkie’s error, if I’m correct, is not in saying that Amerindians are Lamanites, but in describing the Lamanites as the “*principal* ancestors” of today’s American Indians. What, exactly, that would mean grows less clear the more one thinks about it, but it seems to suggest something that, based on the facts of pre-Columbian ethnohistory, seems demonstrably inaccurate.
Randy: “Frankly, as someone still in the process of understanding ‘Level C,’ I have much symphathy for Kaimi’s self-described state of confusion ‘as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs.’”
So do I. In this life, even with the benefit of the restored Gospel, we see through a glass darkly. My objection was never to that part of Kaimi’s position.
I objected to the notion of two different religious faiths, as wildly exaggerated and factually untrue. But that, too, is merely an interesting topic for discussion. More seriously, I objected to the characterization of my friends and colleagues at FARMS (together with myself) as prideful and dismissive elitists. That charge seems to me both untrue and quite astoundingly ugly. (I’m mystified by the fact that Dave seems to think it acceptable.) It is unfortunate that a serious and legitimate topic of discussion was accompanied by what I continue to regard as a generalized but baseless slander.
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 11, 2004 03:40 PM

*****

Dave: Whatever! Kaimi didn’t have to use the word “reprehensible” to accuse FARMS folk of something reprehensible.
That said, Kaimi has backed off of those accusations, to pretty much the position you describe, which is a quite civil position.
Kaimi, I’ll happily grant a) that there are difficulties and dangers in thinking of some group of church members as informed and another as uninformed, and b) that among the dangers are a) divisiveness and b) that if one considers oneself part of the informed group, one may seem condescending (or even become condescending, if one takes inappropriate pride in being informed). I also sympathize with your difficulty feeling sure how to avoid the danger of seeming or being condescending when one regards oneself as among the informed. My post on “Come Join the Ranks” expresses a very similar anxiety (on which more in a moment). (In saying this I take myself to have accepted your settlement : )
I’ll add, Kaimi, that your sense one *can’t but be* condescending in regarding others as less informed seems a sufficient explanation for your impression that FARMS folk *are* condescending. I think in this case the condescension was something you entirely read in, but understandably given you are wrestling with the original question of this thread.
Dan, perhaps you can regard the unflattering things Kaimi said as stemming from his own difficulty working out how one can regard others as less informed than oneself without being condescending (a reasonable difficulty more or less present in the very start of this thread), and thus excuse them. Emphasis thus rests on his, “is there any way to _not_ be condescending with that view?”
Comment by: Ben Huff at May 11, 2004 04:12 PM

*****

Dan,
I agree, as I noted above, with your objection to Kaimi’s notion of “two different faiths.” Frankly, I think Kaimi’s description was intentionally exaggerated so as to engender discussion. Like you, I don’t see a sharp distinction between elitests and commoners, particularly at church. Still, I do feel that a study of certain historical matters pulls me in a very different direction than, say, an intense study of the scriptures alone. This feeling is hard to describe. I have studied several strictly gospel topics at length and never felt like I was distancing myself from others at church–even those who were “less informed” than I. I most certainly do feel this way when I study other subjects related to church history, particualrly when the conclusions reached seem inconsistent with the words of the General Authorities.
I cannot imagine that I am the only one who feels this way. As someone who has spent countless hours in the thick of these things, I wonder what your thoughts are.
On a final note, I understand your more serious objections to Kaimi’s comments and your desire to desire to defend your friends and colleagues. I hope that won’t derail the discussion we’ve been having as it has been very insightful and helpful to me and I suspect others.
Comment by: Randy at May 11, 2004 04:25 PM

*****

Even though I have given up on trying to read through this entire thread that I just stumbled upon, I can not resist jumping in. I would just like to say that I love being a communicant of a non-creedal religion, one where practice is more important than belief, where orthopraxy usually trumps orthodoxy (I don’t care what they believe if he’s willing to be the Scoutmaster, she’s willing to be the nursery leader, etc.). Kaimi ends his initial post with the question of what constitutes “this little structure called church beliefs.” That is the beauty of it — it is in fact a very little structure. I believe that the reality is that there is as much variety in beliefs amongst “chapel” Mormons as between “FARMS” Mormons and any given set of “chapel” Mormons. Within extremely broad boundaries set by our non-theologian prophets acting in council, there are a broad range of interpretations and I say hurrah!
I see the challenge not as what is the correct belief, but rather what we must do in our own searches for truth within the Restored Gospel, and how charitably we can share those searches with others. An example:
(1) Many ignorant Church members contrary to overwhelming evidence think that all American Indians are only descended from Book of Mormon peoples vs.
(2) You know, many Church members believe that there are reasons to think that the American Indians have other ancestors in addition to the Book of Mormon peoples.
And now for my theory — “lamanite” or more properly “lehite” should be thought of like “israelite” — a group of peoples who have received prophetic promises which can include peoples who are not direct descendants of the original recipient of the promises. So if a prophet says all American Indians are Lamanites, then the Book of Mormon promises apply to all American Indians regardless of their ancestry, and the ancestry becomes a strictly academic (in the colloquial sense) question.
Warm hugs to all my brothers and sister(s?) on this fascinating thread.
Comment by: JWL at May 11, 2004 04:29 PM

*****

Randy: That is why I say you protest too much–because you are defending an accusation that was never made (i.e., that the work of FARMS is not sufficiently scholarly to merit academic study at CGU). At least I assume that this is the accusation you are defending against given your defense of FARMS as “adequate for inclusion in a Mormon Studies program.”
Perhaps I have assumed incorrectly and that you are defending a different accusation. If so, please let me know.
——
I was merely asking a question. There are consequences to positions. Language shapes the way we think. This is an ivory tower (that is not a criticism) discussion that I think has ramifications given the growing interest in Mormon Studies (As Phillip Barlow said…”it’s a magnet for scholars because there is so much room for interpretation”).
The statements being made had nothing to do with “scholarly” and I don’t think I asked about that. They had everything to do with “FARMS” not accurately representing the real beliefs of Mormons. This was stated repeatedly.
I am quite familiar with CGU. I hope to be finishing an MA in New Testament soon (or jumping into the Mormon Studies). They are not only establishing a program about Mormons but several other world religions, with the same goal of remaining faithful to the community of believers.
Again, discussions like these are always interesting on an intellectual level but as I said, there are real life implications to the words being said. Thus, my question.
Comment by: Juliann at May 11, 2004 07:30 PM

*****

Dan & Juliann:
Aaron Brown made this extremely insightful comment: “It irritates me when certain Mormon apologists (at FARMS or elsewhere) dismiss anti-Mormon claims as ‘attacking straw-men,’ when all these men of straw seem to be inhabiting my ward.” What are your reactions to that statement, and do you see how it fits in with the phenomenon that Kaimi is describing?
Jared writes: “Perhaps Kaimi and all of us should be more careful to realize that when we speak of instutions such as FARMS or Sunstone, we are really speaking about a group of individuals who do have feelings.”
And since we all know how impeccably polite and civil FARMS is toward the people with whom they disagree, we should all take that advice.
Juliann Reynolds writes: “The Dean of the Religion Dept. of Claremont Graduate University considers FARMsters and what they produce more than adequate for inclusion in a Mormon Studies program.
What would the naysayers recommend to her instead?”
_Gospel Principles_ and _The LDS Church Almanac_. To understand what Mormons believe, it is best to study *what Mormons believe,* not what a select and limited few Mormons believe. N’est-ce pas?
Clark Goble writes: “Kaimi, I think the only real issue is that you seem to think it wrong to think various individuals as ill informed even if they are ill informed. That’s what I’m having a bit of a cognitive dissonance over. How am I to reconcile this?”
Here’s how to reconcile this, Clark. Ill-informed members are that way *BECAUSE OF* the scriptures and the prophets, _not_ *IN SPITE OF* the scriptures and the prophets. Now do you see what Kaimi is getting at?
“What I object to with the ‘chapel vs. internet Mormon’ dichotomy is the usefulness of this way of understanding. As I mentioned, it simply ignores issues of vagueness and strength of belief. Further it confuses issues which most agree are peripheral with core issues.”
Then you must not believe in the Great Apostasy. After all, Christianity is made of different churches which share core beliefs.
JWL writes: “Within extremely broad boundaries set by our non-theologian prophets acting in council, there are a broad range of interpretations and I say hurrah!”
In that case, why didn’t Joseph Smith just say “hurrah” instead of going to the grove and praying?
“And now for my theory — ‘lamanite’ or more properly ‘lehite’ should be thought of like ‘israelite’ — a group of peoples who have received prophetic promises which can include peoples who are not direct descendants of the original recipient of the promises.”
My ancestry is British, German, and Dutch. Therefore, I, too, am not a direct descendant of the original recipient of the promises. So, according to your theory, I guess I’m a Lamanite, too.
Once again, folks: ILL-INFORMED MEMBERS ARE THAT WAY *BECAUSE* THEY FOLLOWED THE PROPHET, NOT BECAUSE THEY *DIDN’T.*
Comment by: Dr. Shades at May 11, 2004 08:18 PM

*****

Dr. Shades: Wow, caps and italics! If you go over to the “Mormon Nominated for D.C. Circuit” thread, you can see where Kaimi tells how to bold and underline, too. Then you could really get your point across!
Comment by: Kingsley at May 11, 2004 08:32 PM

*****

Shades,
As I stated above, we’re trying to discuss things nicely here. Your comments have a few good points, such as the use of Gospel Principles as evidence of what Mormons believe. However, you’ve also made some inflammatory statements that are likely to elicit inflammatory responses, ad nauseum. Please lay off of making inflammatory statements.
If you have questions, please see the T & S commenting policies at THIS LINK.
Comment by: Kaimi at May 11, 2004 08:41 PM

*****

“Here’s how to reconcile this, Clark. Ill-informed members are that way *BECAUSE OF* the scriptures and the prophets, _not_ *IN SPITE OF* the scriptures and the prophets. Now do you see what Kaimi is getting at?”
I’m fairly confident that while this is your belief, that it isn’t Kaimi’s.
“Then you must not believe in the Great Apostasy. After all, Christianity is made of different churches which share core beliefs.”
Obviously Mormons share a belief that other forms of Christianity are missing important core beliefs. The problem is that the points of disagreement between Mormons you focus in on aren’t core beliefs. Further they are points where even the GAs don’t agree. And that’s what I find dishonest about what you do.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 11, 2004 08:42 PM

*****

Wow! I go away for five or six days and everything blows up. My thanks to Dan and Ben Huff for holding down our part of the fort while I was gone. It is really tempting to take us backwards. After all, I’ve also got things to say about the argument that was going on back there. In spite of that, I’ll resist. But there is part of Kaimi’s question that I think has only briefly been discussed: “I remain confused as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs.”
Why assume that we need a coherent construction of church beliefs? Of course there are some core beliefs that we have (though they turn out not to be easy to identify). But as JWL said, it is nice being a communicant in a non-creedal religion, nice because it doesn’t require us to have any more than that core. The rest doesn’t have to fit together into a belief system because for non-creedal religions, religion isn’t a belief system.
This theme is, of course, my hobby horse, so I’ll resist a second temptation by dismounting here: if you insist on coherence, I can (and, unfortunately, will) go at it with the next guy, but when we start creating such things, we aren’t really describing anything like “the essence of Mormonism”; religion doesn’t need such an essence.
Comment by: Jim F. at May 11, 2004 08:42 PM

*****

“Here’s how to reconcile this, Clark. Ill-informed members are that way *BECAUSE OF* the scriptures and the prophets, _not_ *IN SPITE OF* the scriptures and the prophets. Now do you see what Kaimi is getting at?”
I’m fairly confident that while this is your belief, that it isn’t Kaimi’s.
“Then you must not believe in the Great Apostasy. After all, Christianity is made of different churches which share core beliefs.”
Obviously Mormons share a belief that other forms of Christianity are missing important core beliefs. The problem is that the points of disagreement between Mormons you focus in on aren’t core beliefs. Further they are points where even the GAs don’t agree. And that’s what I find dishonest about what you do.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 11, 2004 08:44 PM

*****

Hi folks,
Humans are extraordinarily complex. As useful as categories can be, I’m not convinced that labeling devout LDS “elite” or “common,” “chapel” or “Internet,” and so on captures the complexity of belief. That said, Kaimi surely has a valid point.
Take, for example, Mike Whiting’s FARMS-sponsored lecture on DNA and the BoMor (29 January 2003). Mike’s PowerPoint presentation was followed by a panel of specialists who entertained questions from the audience. A portion of the ensuing exchange is instructive:
Q: Jose—native Peruvian: Dr. Whiting referred to the statement in the preface to the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans, I thought somewhat condescendingly, a[s] mere commentary. I want to know exactly what the weight of the scientific evidence does to that statement. Does it support that statement? Does it contradict that statement? With the state of the science right now should there be a different statement?
It seems to me, I’m left with the impression that it contradicts that statement and if that’s the case will you join me in requesting the Church leadership to remove that statement from the Book of Mormon? Because it is now as we speak being used in the entire American continent as a missionary tool to lure members into the Church, perhaps under the mistaken impression that they are the descendants of Lamanites.
I am Peruvian. I grew up believing that I was a Lamanite. I am now overwhelmed with the surprise coming from the science, coming from the archaeological evidence. We don’t know where the Book of Mormon took place. We don’t know where the Lamanites are. If we don’t know who the Lamanites are how can the Book of Mormon promise to bring them back?
It’s an identity crisis for many of us that has to be understood. If it’s misunderstood then it’s going to come back to haunt the Church, in my opinion.
A: Dr. Whiting: At this point I would agree that the current scientific evidence suggests that the Native Americans have the Asia genetic ancestry. I am not in a position right now to argue that point. In regards to will I write a letter to General Authorities? I don’t think I will but I think you are certainly welcome to, uh, welcome you to [see here].
A clearly frustrated audience member followed up:
Q: (unknown person): I think it’s a little unfair to leave this fellow in the back of the room (referring to Jose from Peru) hanging. (audience applause) One of the things that is unfair to me, maybe you can comment on it, Dan or someone else, is who are the Lamanites? Because we have to have a definition of who the Lamanites are, before we can throughout the statement that they are not the principal ancestors of the American Indians. If the Lamanites are by a broader definition are everyone who is not a Nephite, in the Book of Mormon, then there is no problem with that statement. Do you have any further insight on this?
A: Dr. Whiting: Probably not. (audience chuckles) [see here, emphasis added].
A few minutes later, I did what I almost never do at a FARMS-hosted venue—I offered a comment, ending with a reference back to the Peruvian gentleman’s remarks. The audience response? Another ovation …
Q: Brent Metcalfe webmaster of Mormon Scripture Studies: The other gentleman made a very good point … that … classifying and identifying what constitutes a Lamanite is a huge issue. … [T]he Book of Mormon … is very specific on this. … [I]t does in fact make very specific biological sorts of claims. For example, in Nephi’s vision in 1 Nephi chapter 13 one of the things that [Nephi] is told by God … [is] that the seed of his brethren will be preserved; that they will exist on into the last days, so that the Gentiles can bring them the Book of Mormon and tell them of their heritage—their noble Lamanite heritage. But then Nephi is specifically told that a mixture of his seed would also be preserved. Now that makes absolutely no sense to me because basically what we are arguing is that Lamanites can be anything—it can be anything that is non-Nephite—because Nephi is being told that his own seed will in fact be preserved in the last days, so that they will … discover their original identity, and that they are Israelites, effectively. That to me is a huge statement that I see … being glossed over. I don’t know any of your genetic backgrounds. I don’t know how many of you are Amerindian or not (up on the panel), but I do think that this gentleman had a good point and it doesn’t deserve to be just glossed over. (audience applause) [see here, emphasis added].
A young BYU student (who had earlier shared that he was a returned missionary) shook hands with me as he departed the room and thanked me for articulating an issue that he felt was poorly handled by the panelists. Other BYU students and a couple of BYU professors made similar comments to me as they were leaving the lecture.
To me, it appeared that those who had orchestrated the event had woefully misjudged the willingness of attendees to blithely embrace a revisionist view of Lamanite-Israelite ancestry where Amerindians owe maybe 1/100,000th (or some other meaningless figure) of their biological heritage to the BoMor’s founding Israelite immigrants, if they owe any portion at all. (Keep in mind that some of these folks probably grew up, like I did, with the notion that a worthy male had to have at least 1/16th African ancestry to be considered “Hamite” and fall under the priesthood prohibition.)
It is this disconnect between LDS schools of thought that I think Kaimi was attempting to capture (though I invite Kaimi to correct me if I’m mistaken). And despite the energetic bantering on this thread, this disconnect remains elusive.
Now back to my regularly scheduled projects …
Best regards,
Brent
Comment by: Brent Metcalfe at May 11, 2004 09:35 PM

*****

Juliann, Dan, now Shades….. is this T&S or ZLMB??? Sheesh!
Comment by: Steve Evans at May 11, 2004 09:46 PM

*****

There goes the neighborhood.
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 11, 2004 10:06 PM

*****

Juliann,
I don’t mean to belabor a tiresome discussion, but I am interested in your comment about CGU’s “goal of remaining faithful to the community of believers.” What exactly does that mean? The vast majority of Mormons, for example, “believe” exactly what is printed in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon regarding the American Indians. If CGU is going to be “faithful” to this community of LDS believers, must the school ignore those FARMS publications that suggest that the Introduction is, as Dan says, “simply wrong.” What if a student wanted to write her dissertation on the limited geography hypothesis? Disallowed on grounds that it is out of step with the views of most members? What if someone wanted to devote his dissertation to some new, unflattering, and entirely plausible theory of Mormon history. Forbidden on grounds that the leaders of our church might not approve?
Surely this is not the case. CGU undoubtedly wants its students to both “play niceâ€? — i.e., “remain faithful to the community of believersâ€? — and “play smartâ€? — engage in a thorough, thoughtful, and even critical study of the religion in question. I don’t see how such a study of Mormonism could take place without considering the views of LDS scholars like those at FARMS. Accordingly, I don’t think it makes any sense, practically speaking or otherwise, to ask for suggestions about how CGU should go about restricting the Mormon Studies curriculum. Indeed, the notion of such a limitation is entirely inconsistent with the very purpose of such a course of study.
One final point. You take the position (or so it seems) that FARMS “accurately represent[s] the real beliefs of Mormons.� But as Kaimi implies at the outset, this merely begs the question. The work FARMS is doing often leads to conclusions that are inconsistent with what most members, and even some GAs (e.g., Elder McConkie), believe. Given this predicament, how do we decide, as a practical matter, what the “real beliefs of Mormons� are? Just how confident are you that the “real beliefs of Mormons� (whatever that means) are contained not in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon but in the latest edition of the FARMS Review?
Comment by: Randy at May 11, 2004 11:35 PM

*****

Dan, could you give us a few more sentences on the ethnographic details that in your mind count against the idea of the Lamanites’ being the principal ancestors of the Amerindians?
It seems to me we should look more at issues of culture than genetics if we want to look at the scientific evidence regarding this idea. Brent’s point about the seed of Nephi and the seed of Laman notwithstanding, in the later parts of the Book of Mormon, Nephite or Lamanite affiliation is primarily political and religious. This is true even before the coming of Christ, but especially after. After a couple hundred years of one united Christian society without “-ites” (4 Ne 1:17), the Book of Mormon society splits on religious and political lines into Nephites and Lamanites, based on whether they sympathize more with Laman or Nephi (or Jacob or Lemuel or whatever) as a role model or whatever (4 Ne 1:37-8). “Lamanite” may have a meaning a bit like “Confucian” (which applies in varying degrees to several East Asian cultures).
In that light it seems Dr. Whiting’s comments about Asian genetic background is not to the point. Rather, we should be thinking about culture in evaluating the claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Amerindians. Or at least a mixture of genetics and culture. If we look at American culture over the past 1600 years, do we see evidence one way or another?
Comment by: Ben Huff at May 11, 2004 11:40 PM

*****

The most obvious fact at the moment counting against the idea that today’s Amerindian populations literally (that is, biologically) descend principally or even solely from the Near Eastern Lehites is that typically Near Eastern genetic markers — specifically, those characteristic of Hebrew groups — have not yet been identified among them. Instead, typically east Asian or northeast Asian markers have been identified.
But this is hardly big news to those who have concerned themselves with the subject previously, as blood types and certain other physical characteristics already pointed in the same way, and since the archaeological record makes it patently obvious that substantial populations inhabited the Americas prior, even, to the advent of the Jaredites, and that such populations existed in large numbers at the time when Lehi arrived.
It is virtually inconceivable that the typically Near Eastern or Hebraic markers could simply have disappeared altogether from an isolated population, being replaced with markers typical of certain regions of east Asia. (That said, however, we must admit that we know nothing whatsoever about the genetic characteristics of Lehi’s wife, Sariah, who could possibly have been DNA-anomalous — genetic statements about large population groups are generalizations, and may or may not hold in any particular individual case — and who may or may not have been of purely Hebrew descent. And it is her mtDNA, along with that of the even more mysterious daughters of Ishmael, that is relevant to the question of the genetic character of the “Lehites.”)
Your point about the extrabiological character of Lamanite identity is precisely correct, and very relevant to this issue. It is not required that every Lamanite be genetically related to Lehi through Laman; such is not necessarily the case even in the Book of Mormon itself. We ourselves speak of adoption into “Israel,” which confers the same covenant blessings as does blood lineage. Arab tribes routinely adopted new members, and probably still do among the Bedouin; after a generation or two, the matter of adoption is irrelevant and forgotten.
I myself lean strongly toward your view that Lamanite identity rests upon a mix of genetics and culture. In fact, I can scarcely see how it could be otherwise.
Even in my own neighborhood, this is obvious. We have people living across the street from and next door to us who are of pure Norwegian ancestry, pure Italian descent, and pure Chinese genealogy. They all speak English, and their culture is not that of Norway, Italy, or China, but that of England as modified by the American experience.
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 12, 2004 12:13 AM

*****

Ben, I think though that the prophecies that Brent rightly focuses in on relate to the period of covenants prior to the unification. I agree that Lamanite is primarily political and find the assumption that it is genetic to be anachronistic at best. We don’t even find within the Book of Mormon the views on what makes an authentic Jew (i.e. Jewish mother) that we find in the old world. Indeed that racial perspective seems absent. That’s not to say there isn’t a strong xenophobic and racist quality to Book of Mormon societies. But they certainly don’t appear to me to follow what we see in the Old World. (I once tried to find them in the Book of Mormon, but found the task futile — indeed little is discussed about marriage and lineage details outside of Jacob’s condemnations of polygamy)
So I actually think Brent raises a good point (although I suspect we’ll disagree on the solution).
The question is, of course, an analysis of what seed means in the Book of Mormon. I agree that 1 Ne 13:30 ought to be read as implying other inhabitants. I also think 1 Ne 14:2 implies some doctrine of adoption by which someone becomes “number among the seed.” Yes that’s is a prophesy of the last days, but what is important is that notion of adoption. I think we can read 2 Ne 1:5 as a parallelism implies that all brought to this land are his seed. Although clearly that is open to many other readings. There are lots of other scriptures that can be read as adoption as well. (2 Ne 4:11. 2 Ne 10:19)
I’d add that the Nephite appear to allow adoption to go the other way as well, such as in 2 Ne 5:23 where those who mix with the Lamanites appear to be numbered as Lamanites.
I also think that the notion of seed in the Book of Mormon must be understood two significant sermons: that of Jacob 5 and the grafting allegory as well as Mosiah 15 and the adoption imagery there.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 12:26 AM

*****

Ben, I think though that the prophecies that Brent rightly focuses in on relate to the period of covenants prior to the unification. I agree that Lamanite is primarily political and find the assumption that it is genetic to be anachronistic at best. We don’t even find within the Book of Mormon the views on what makes an authentic Jew (i.e. Jewish mother) that we find in the old world. Indeed that racial perspective seems absent. That’s not to say there isn’t a strong xenophobic and racist quality to Book of Mormon societies. But they certainly don’t appear to me to follow what we see in the Old World. (I once tried to find them in the Book of Mormon, but found the task futile — indeed little is discussed about marriage and lineage details outside of Jacob’s condemnations of polygamy)
So I actually think Brent raises a good point (although I suspect we’ll disagree on the solution).
The question is, of course, an analysis of what seed means in the Book of Mormon. I agree that 1 Ne 13:30 ought to be read as implying other inhabitants. I also think 1 Ne 14:2 implies some doctrine of adoption by which someone becomes “number among the seed.” Yes that’s is a prophesy of the last days, but what is important is that notion of adoption. I think we can read 2 Ne 1:5 as a parallelism implies that all brought to this land are his seed. Although clearly that is open to many other readings. There are lots of other scriptures that can be read as adoption as well. (2 Ne 4:11. 2 Ne 10:19)
I’d add that the Nephite appear to allow adoption to go the other way as well, such as in 2 Ne 5:23 where those who mix with the Lamanites appear to be numbered as Lamanites.
I also think that the notion of seed in the Book of Mormon must be understood two significant sermons: that of Jacob 5 and the grafting allegory as well as Mosiah 15 and the adoption imagery there.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 12:27 AM

*****

Hi Clark,
You’ve identified some pertinent issues. For a few of the reasons why I consider them unsound, see my essay:
ï‚· Brent Lee Metcalfe, “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Sunstone 131 (March 2004): 20–25.
My best,
Brent
Comment by: Brent Metcalfe at May 12, 2004 01:22 AM

*****

Kaimi,
You may or may not be happy to know that this post has made it as a link on Shades’ chapel/internet Mormons page. Unfortunately, Shades currently believes you to be a woman. I suppose we all make mistakes.
Comment by: Frank McIntyre at May 12, 2004 01:34 AM

*****

Randy says: You take the position (or so it seems) that FARMS “accurately represent[s] the real beliefs of Mormons.� But as Kaimi implies at the outset, this merely begs the question. The work FARMS is doing often leads to conclusions that are inconsistent with what most members, and even some GAs (e.g., Elder McConkie), believe. Given this predicament, how do we decide, as a practical matter, what the “real beliefs of Mormons� are? Just how confident are you that the “real beliefs of Mormons� (whatever that means) are contained not in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon but in the latest edition of the FARMS Review?
——–
Then the real belief is contained in *both*…isn’t it? To say that journals have to “represent Mormonism” is, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of how liberal scholarship works in the secular academy. This was my objection to the characterization of FARMS that I was seeing on this thread. There seems to be a pervasive expectation that LDS scholars are suspect when it is not considered unusual and certainly not inappropriate for Protestant, Catholic or Jewish scholars to “believe”. It would be considered highly inappropriate to even bring that up let alone make an issue of it.
According to Dean Torjeson, the academy has a role to play in legitimatizing Mormonism. “It won’t be trivialized anymore.” She compared this process to what she had encountered as she left her field of Patristics and turned to the once trivialized field of women’s studies. I would suggest that as an appropriate analogy to use when formulating what you might expect from a liberal approach to Mormon Studies (keeping in mind that Women’s Studies should not be stereotyped as a “position”, either.) She expects that CGU will establish a model for the study of religions that other schools will use. They hope for the following:
1. A place where study of religion involves all
religion.
2. A study of religion that is faithful to the
religion that practices it.
3. Outsiders study the religion in a way that is
responsible to the community.
In her words, “we start with historical not theological.” The commitment is to evaluate but be balanced. **Any presentation must include what all positions are and who holds them. **
This continues to be the downfall of critics of Mormonism, in my opinion. They refuse to acknowledge the range of opinion in LDS thought. Since FARMS publications spend a good deal of its time responding to such caricatures, it already starts with a leg up. I do not see nor have I heard LDS scholars ever refuse to acknowledge a range of practice or belief in lectures or conferences. In fact, much of the Yale conference was spent deliberating systematic theology vs our historical meta-narrative approach. CGU is certainly not unaware of the theological tensions, thus, they will begin with a historical approach rather than a theological one. While they want a study of religion which is faithful to those who practice it, they also want to go from tolerance to actual understanding. She used Robert Millet and his traveling road show presentations with his Evangelical partner as an example of how to do this.
Part of the problem I see is that few seem to understand how liberal our theology is. Since we tend to be social/political conservatives we just assume we are theological conservatives. Torjeson does not see us as conservative. In response to your “CGU undoubtedly wants its students to both “play niceâ€? — i.e., “remain faithful to the community of believersâ€? — and “play smartâ€? — engage in a thorough, thoughtful, and even critical study of the religion in question.” The answer is that a liberal approach would be to analyize and understand *how* the LDS community has defined and positioned prophecy (or whatever)and what that contributes to the community… not to decide whether we do it right, good or bad or together enough, which is where this discussion seemed to have begun. Where this will likely fall into place in an academic setting is that participants will have to define their terms and set parameters rather than jumping on “Mormonism” as being a meaningful descriptor.
Comment by: Juliann at May 12, 2004 01:54 AM

*****

Brent, this probably isn’t the place to discuss your paper. As I said, I agree with the issue you raise. I don’t agree with your conclusions with regards to the issue. In particular I disagree with your reading of 2 Ne 1. I see that as primarily a reference to future events which renders it irrelevant to pre-Lehites, since those people were already here. i.e. It explains why there weren’t more major influxes until the Europeans after Columbus. You also don’t address the issues of adoption I raised.
I also think that if adoption is present within the text then the meaning of “descendent” may very well not imply direct descent. (Since by definition adoption is making one who isn’t of ones seed into ones seed) Since your paper doesn’t address the issue of adoption, I don’t really see it being that relevant to my points. Regarding 19th century views, if we don’t take them as infallible then your argument also becomes somewhat moot.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 02:02 AM

*****

Regarding the primary issue, we appear to have descended back into the conflations I thought we’d clarified earlier. When we speak of Mormon theology, are we speaking of what various groups who happen to be Mormon believe? Or are we speaking about the “what” of their beliefs? If the former, then all these complaints may well be relevant. If the latter, then I think all Mormons would acknowledge that their beliefs attempt to reference some external reality and it is that external reality that counts and not their beliefs regarding it.
I suspect very few people would deny a healthy fallibilism towards their beliefs. Most recognize that there is much more to learn and the byword of “line upon line” seems held by most Mormons.
So, let us please be clear about what we are discussing. In my mind those who make the beliefs (vague or otherwise) of lay members dominant and of prime concern are implicitly denying that the reality Mormons seek after is relevant to us theologically. i.e. it adopts an anti-realist view of theology.
To return to the analogy I provided earlier, no one would say that the world is what scientists think it is but recognize that scientists are attempting to discover what is really out there. Thus scientists can discard old beliefs without really taking it too seriously. Yet somehow this is not allowed of Mormons by some. It seems unfortunate and always doomed to lead to misunderstandings and strawmen.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 02:09 AM

*****

Hi Clark,
Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I don’t have as much playtime for Internet forums as I’d like.
I encourage you to read my Sunstone essay. I do address the issue of adoption, and my concern for 19thC BoMor interpretation focuses almost exclusively on what Joseph Smith claimed to know via divine revelation—the ostensible source by which he dictated the BoMor. If you consider Joseph’s interpretive revelations “fallible,” then I assume that you also consider his revelation of the BoMor itself “fallible”—and I’m left wondering why on earth you’d appeal to such a fallible revelation as evidence of anything.
Just wondering.
Best wishes,
Brent
Comment by: Brent Metcalfe at May 12, 2004 02:17 AM

*****

Brent, I do consider the BoM fallible as does the text itself. (See Ether 12 which is read by many Mormons as implying fallibilism)
I reread your article, but I don’t find the issue of adoption satisfactorily addressed. Your answer to the issue of adoption simply is, “such suggestions, however, have no real explanatory power since both the Amerisraelites and the pre-Israeilte Jaredites fail to mention indigenous ‘others’ and the Amerisraelite narrators exhibit no difficulty recognizing the Jareites as non-Israelites who formerly inhabited the promised land.” (p. 22) However this begs the question and at best appeals to the argument of silence. Further it avoids the issue of identification which significantly determines whether one is or isn’t identified with a particular group. The Jaredites were interesting precisely because they weren’t identified with a group the way the other indigenous peoples were (with the Lamanites).
I can understand not finding this model persuasive. But your argument against it really doesn’t engage the model at all.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 02:37 AM

*****

I put a longish discussion of what I see as the underlying issue up on my blog.
To me the fundamental issue really gets down to what the purpose of theology is. Is it to produce words to which we must assent? Or is it to produce actions and habits which we are coming to acquire? The former view is fundamentally wrong. It tends to ignore meaning and replaces it with words and then pretends that the words are the meaning. It also ignores intentionality in terms of ends. What counts theologically isn’t what we are attempting to do, but what words we happen to have as a resting stop in our quest.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 03:14 AM

*****

Hi Clark,
Thanks again for your response and for sharing your opinions.
Well, we certainly differ on what it means to beg the question and to argue from silence. My arguments in my Sunstone essay are framed by what the BoMor does say, not by what it doesn’t say. You may convince me otherwise if you can point to even one BoMor passage that identifies a Lamanite or Nephite as an Israelite by virtue of “adoption.” (Frankly, I don’t think you can.)
It strikes me as astonishingly precarious to build an argument on confessions of fallibility from fallible “ancient” prophets whose fallible words are only known through a fallible revelatory process. (Does that help clarify my point?)
But more to the point of this thread, no one has yet addressed the disconnect between the various LDS schools of thought.
And with that, it’s time for bed …
My best,
Brent
Comment by: Brent Metcalfe at May 12, 2004 03:15 AM

*****

Brent, while you discuss what is said, in the passage quoted the argument is clearly framed in terms of what is not said. As I said, I read the other passages differently than you do.
As to your worry about building arguments built on a chain of fallible positions. Welcome to the world of science. We have no problem doing that. Over in my blog, I frequently make appeal to C. S. Peirce who adopts a rather strong position of fallibilism.
As I’ve said many times, most criticisms of Mormon theology end up resting on a position that denies the place of fallibilism in LDS theology. If one brings in fallibilism, as I think is necessary, then most of the arguments lose a lot of force. (Which is not to say that good points aren’t made at times) This is fundamentally why I think some want this taxonomy of “Chapel Mormons” to exist. It is a way of brushing away the issue of fallibilism. (IMO)
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 03:21 AM

*****

Brent writes: “Unfortunately, I don’t have as much playtime for Internet forums as I’d like.”
If you sincerely mean this (i.e. if it’s not what it seems to be, a copout), why jump into such forums in the first place? Why approach someone engaged in conversation deeply meaningful to them, challenge its meaningfulness, and then, once a rebuttal begins, back away protesting that you just don’t have time for such idle chatter? It seems boorish, to say the least.
Comment by: Kingsley at May 12, 2004 03:53 AM

*****

Brent says: My arguments in my Sunstone essay are framed by what the BoMor does say, not by what it doesn’t say.
—-
This is an indefensible position in scholarship, particularly since the advent of methodology brought in by women’s studies. It may be an explanation of what *you* are doing but it does not serve as a rebuttal to scholarship on the topic.
Comment by: Juliann at May 12, 2004 03:59 AM

*****

Dave says: I detect a subtle shift in tone and style, away from dialogue and conversation, toward the obnoxious habit of snipping the weakest sentence from another’s post and critiquing it with little reference to the balance of their argument. IMHO, it’s a lazy habit calculated to offend rather than enlighten.
I sincerely hope the self-justificatory sniping is confined to this rather unusual thread (which, by the way, is poised to hit No. 2 on the all-time comments list, about 40 comments short of No. 1).
Comment by: Dave at May 12, 2004 05:21 AM

*****

Dave, I’m not sure that is happening. I think quotations often are picked so as find a representative text. Of course we can debate how representative it actually is and that is always a fair criticism. However the alternative to this is to speak in broad generalities which make discussion difficult. As to whether this is self-justifying, I’m not sure it is. Hopefully it is designed to be explanatory. That not everyone will agree with the explanation seems sure. I’m not sure the effort to explain why one feels the way one does about a text is misguided though.
It all depends upon ones perspective I suppose.
I’d also add, that when one is replying, unless one at least provides a trace of what one is replying to it gets very confusing. Especially if one is replying to something said earlier on in the thread. So I personally find quotes very helpful and not a “lazy habit calculated to offend.” That’s why, in email, I use them rather frequently.
Comment by: Clark Goble at May 12, 2004 06:06 AM

*****

Dave, this is the second time that you have dropped in to rate someone else’s performance rather than contributing anything to the topic itself. Are you willing to consider the possibility that that might be just as obnoxious as what you are accusing others of?
What would you like to see addressed that you think was unfairly left out?
Comment by: Juliann at May 12, 2004 06:29 AM

*****

If I was still a “laymember” of the Church and not steep into Historical and Doctrinal study’s but simply having a “basic” witness of the Gospels Truth, and I read FARMS and FAIRS materials there wouldn’t and never has been a “divide” between the two thought processes and understandings.
In otherwords, as a “laymember” there would be nothing conflicting between my views and those of FARMS.
FARMS would simply be the more well thought out and accurate views of what I already know, in otherwords Level C or the “Synthesis” of my understanding.
Thus, this whole discussion is quite unnecessary.
And the fact that there is a slight difference between Level A and Level C, does not change the fact that they are still the same.
And there are many members who are at Level A who ARE informed, but simply have other talents and interests, and hence do not magnify Level C.
Thus, Elite and Common Religion/Chapel Mormon and Internet Mormon MIXES and BLURS between the two, so there is no either or.
Level A and Level C are exactly the same. One is simply more “detailed” than the other.
By the way, I’ve actually been ALL three Levels, as well as not religious and being religious and spiritually minded at other times.
The Church is True, Line upon Line, Precept upon Precept…. to those who have the Faith to really find out, despite the stumbling blocks. ;)
Comment by: leeuniverse at May 12, 2004 01:25 PM

*****

So, Lee, if someone were to come up and ask you, “Where do Mormons believe the Native Americans come from?”, how would you answer?
How would the prophet answer?
How would everyone else in your Ward answer?
How would FARMS answer?
Last but not least, how would Joseph Smith answer?
Then tell me whether or not there’s any difference between A & C.
Comment by: Dr. Shades at May 12, 2004 02:19 PM

*****

Hard to imagine, but humor me:
If “Dr. Shades,” an average Church member, a Latter-day Saint apostle, and a typically prideful FARMS elitist were conversing together, and an interviewer walked up to them and asked the following ten questions, whose answers would most frequently make him the odd man out? Would there be any basis for claiming, from his answers to the following questions, that one of the three remaining after the subtraction of the “odd man out” actually belonged to a wholly different religious faith than the other two?
(1) Is there a God?
(2) Is Jesus Christ divine?
(3) Does redemption come through Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone?
(4) Were there literal historical Nephites?
(5) Were there real gold plates?
(6) Did Joseph Smith see the Father and the Son?
(7) Did John the Baptist, and, later, Peter, James, and John restore the priesthood?
(8) Do the contemporary prophets and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the keys of priesthood authority on earth?
(9) Is there life after death?
(10) Was Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?
(Other such questions available on demand.)
Comment by: Daniel Peterson at May 12, 2004 02:39 PM

*****

Juliann, no I didn’t rate anyone’s performance; I did not name names nor did I give anything resembling a rating. What I did was make a personal observation about a shift in the tone and style of recent posts, particularly in this rather unusual thread.
It is possible to disagree without being disagreeble, although it takes some practice. For example, Nate has been disagreeing with me since before T&S even started (and he does an embarrassingly good job of it) but he has never been disagreeable. Personally, the only way I’ve found to purge my posts of my own obnoxious remarks is to hit the preview button and review my posts two or three times before posting, taking great care to remove gratuitous comments or loaded terms that are likely to offend. I think it is worth the effort.
Clark, I agree it can be useful to use a representative short quote as a point of departure. It only gets objectionable if the quote is unrepresentative, or if someone parses an entire post into little chunks, each of which gets its own mini-rant of a commentary.
On the other hand, restating another’s argument rather than cutting and pasting even a representative quote forces one to think through their argument and possibly see things from their point of view. That can be an enlightening exercise.
Comment by: Dave at May 12, 2004 02:49 PM

*****

Dr. Shades,
I wonder if you are the same “Dr. Shades” of “exmormon.com” fame? If so, I wonder why you would even bother with a site like T&S. Why’ll not every person who participates here is a believer, the vast majority are, and I would suppo

Now to comment on the sideshow: I find it interesting that most Mormon self criticism focuses on analysis of the Book of Mormon and early history. To the extent that there are issues brought up with the Bible, they are generally restricted to the Pentateuch. I have seldom observed Mormon intellectuals attack (say) the New Testament with the fervor or interest with which many of them pursue Book of Mormon studies, though the New Testament is not without its scientific or academic problems and the apologetics written on its behalf are generally very shoddy.

I’ve often wondered whether this is because Mormons recognize that some people question whether Mormons are Christian, and going after the New Testament the way they go after the Book of Mormon would only lead to more questioning. Is this the case? If it is, does this make the Mormon intellectuals intellectually dishonest, disinterested for self-interested reasons, or just academically different from other Christian intellectuals?

I’ve seen similar comments using the terms Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons (which avoids some of the connotations of the terms elite and common). Here’s a link:

http://www.fiber.net/users/drshades/imvscm.htm

http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000673.html#010060