Controversial Scholarship, Audience, and Red Lines

Stephen Fleming

•

No doubt SOME found the posts unwelcome in challenging a historical theology central to belief. That’s totally understandable, and I’m guessing that attitude would fit the vast majority of active members. A similar percentage would likely find debates over controversial topics in Mormon history unwelcome. Lots aren’t interested in delving in.

Like I said in this post, it’s never been my intention to proselytize my views to the general membership, but instead to have discussions with those who ARE interested in scholarship.

But it can be hard to keep those boundaries distinct. I’ve stated I view the Bloggernacle as a place to share ideas, and thus don’t see myself as some contrarian in Sunday School. These blogs are a different kind of space.

But I DO find the study of history compelling and thus found it noteworthy that biblical scholarship has come up with some curve balls. I’ve observed some different responses to this scholarship: dismiss the scholarship altogether, try to find scholarship that supports previous held views, lose all belief in religion, etc.

So like I’ve said, I think having conversations about this scholarship is worthwhile even if there’s a chunk of readers who find it uninteresting or offensive. This kind of scholarship is pretty easy to access, and like I said, I’ve heard some people cite it in their descriptions of their faith crises.

So I had some thoughts to share that I’ve mentioned a few times, but was likely naïve about how foreign a lot of my thinking has been to many readers. Last week I ran a summary of my overarching concept by a friend I was out to lunch with and his response was, “There is not a single member of the church that will find what you are saying appealing.”

Me: “Okay, but in 10 to 20 years, a few might!”

No doubt I’ll have many adjustments to my own thinking in the coming decades, but to repeat, I do think these conversation are important, and it’s okay to suggest some possibilities. Jonathan mentioned red lines, but I even wonder if we can have conversations about those also.

Comments

2 responses to “Controversial Scholarship, Audience, and Red Lines”

  1. Jonathan Green

    Stephen, yes, it’s important to be aware of the scholarship. People draw different conclusions from it, though. It doesn’t mean that they’re choosing to remain uninformed, just that what they do with it is different. Frank and others have explained how they look at scholarship on the OT based on experience in their own academic fields, which is what we’re all going to do – filter new information through previous experience. And it’s important to recognize that as a valid part of the conversation, since we’re all outsiders to OT studies, rather than seeing it only as some form of defensive rejection.

    I mentioned red lines because they exist and they’re important. People have prior commitments to critically important propositions – things like “God exists” and “the Church is true” – and aren’t interested in spending time on a discussion that doesn’t respect those propositions. It’s not that they’ve never considered the alternative – we’re confronted by the alternatives all the time! People’s commitments will differ to some extent, even as church members, and I’m not unduly concerned with whether or not you accept the historical existence of Moses. But you do need to understand the commitments of the people you’re in conversation with.

    I don’t know why conversation is getting stuck on OT historicity. You were headed towards some thoughts on Platonic thought in the work of Joseph Smith. Why take this detour? I don’t know why it’s necessary to erase the OT before talking about Plato.

  2. ji

    Historians seem to agree in asserting that Herod was already dead when Jesus was born. Does this mean the scripture stories of the visit of and magi and the slaying of the innocents must be false?

    I am not a historian, but I appreciate historical efforts. I like reading history and wondering about the things I read.

    However much I respect historians, I am not ready to join them in declaring the scripture stories as false – I’m not willing to abandon my faith based on the findings of historians. I won’t argue with the historians about their methods or their findings, and I will continue to accept the scripture stories as largely true* or otherwise purposeful. I am okay with a little dissonance between my faith and the findings of historians (and other academics).

    It is good when a historian shares the results of his or her on-going research, and it is especially joyful when history seems to support the scripture stories. But I get a little tense when a person attempts to use history to weaken the faith of others. Maybe I prefer to keep history and faith in separate spheres. Faith has more power to save souls than history. Let me take the Savior’s phrase, this ought ye to have done (faith), not leaving the other undone (history).

    I am tired and wholly unpersuaded on arguments for or against the historicity of the scriptures.

    *Some will note that definition of the word “true” has shifted over time. I am sympathetic to the older understanding of the word.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.