And as yearned for by R.W. Emerson at the very time (give or take or year) the Prophet learned and revealed these insights (e.g., pentecostal Kirtland Temple dedication…).

“Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an *original relation to the universe?* Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? *The sun shines today also.* There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.”

“Men have come to speak of the revelation as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. The injury to faith throttles the preacher; and the goodliest of institutions becomes an uncertain and inarticulate voice. It is my duty to say to you, that the need was never greater of new revelation than now. From the views I have already expressed, you will infer the sad conviction, which I share, I believe, with numbers, of the universal decay and now almost death of faith in society. The soul is not preached. The Church seems to totter to its fall, almost all life extinct. On this occasion, any complaisance would be criminal, which told you, whose hope and commission it is to preach the faith of Christ, that the faith of Christ is preached. The stationariness of religion; the assumption that the age of inspiration is past, that the Bible is closed; the fear of degrading the character of Jesus by representing him as a man; indicate with sufficient clearness the falsehood of our theology. ***The true Christianity — a faith like Christ’s in the infinitude of man — is lost.*** But it is the office of a true teacher to show us that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.”

Prayer answered.

Steve can, no doubt, defend himself. But, I just wanted to say that it seems like every post thus far from Adam has challenged the (shall we say) “historical” way of looking at historicity — not that that’s necessarily a bad thing per se. But even so, when he’s in lock-step with some of the younger, upcoming scholars on the question of historicity it’s hard not to see his posts as conveying (in some measure) the newer, softer approach to such a hugely divisive issue.

That said, I still do enjoy Adam’s posts — wonderful food for thought.

Unfortunately, modern apologetics hasn’t led to ANY conclusion, much less something I’d care to advance.

As for “more open to an expanded LDS metaphysics” I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean, “it’s all fiction” then I’d consider that backwards. Certainly from a purely secular view the church wouldn’t exist terribly long were it to embrace such a view.

However, your point para two is well-taken in that I and others here are inordinately suspicious of any discussion that seems to attempt to downplay historicity. Would that such were not so, and that we all would/could be more open to an expanded LDS metaphysic. Poisoning the well has consequences for everybody, as both orthodox scholars and so-called intellectuals know.

I don’t see Adam attempting to separate from historical claims. (Again I find the term “literalist” singularly unhelpful due to its ambiguity) Perhaps that’s an incorrect reading of Adam. But certainly I don’t see anything in the posts he’s made that detracts from historical views of scripture. He’s just focusing on something else. If one takes any discussion not about historicity as an attempt to deflect or obscure then of course you’ll take him as doing that. But that’s just a ludicrous approach to take on topics IMO.

As for Nibley’s work being “dated” – please tell me where apologetics has actually advanced since Nibley. Looks to me like it’s gone backwards. Witness the warm&fuzzy history-less theories of Miller, Bokovoy, Givens, et al –