- Jonathan Green on Latter-day Saint Apologetics Tier List: “I’m also ambivalent about chiasmus. I think it’s a good example of the Book of Mormon’s complexity and how aspects of the text can escape notice for 150 years before anyone notices them, but it gets more attention than it deserves. B tier, but overall complexity is an A tier for me. The Book of Mormon has a depth that is hard to explain. I’d put the physicality of the golden plates in the B+/A range. They sound so improbable, but in the contemporary historical documents, their physical reality is hard to wave away. Joseph Smith doesn’t act like someone trying to keep a fiction going, but like someone trying to keep possession of a very real stack of metallic plates. I agree that the Kinderhook Plates belong somewhere near the top. They get treated as a scandal, but they actually point in the opposite direction. As you say, none of this is conclusive, but a lot of it is far weirder than dismissive accounts of early church history depict it.” Oct 27, 05:06
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Checking for traps is always a good idea, RLD. Thanks for the engagement.” Oct 26, 14:57
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “I understand the objections, but I still find it valuable to have someone sharing some of the scholarship who speaks the language of Mormonism. But I also approach any writings with a degree of skepticism, regardless of their faith position and figure that there is more to the story, which might be part why it’s not as big of a deal to me.” Oct 26, 12:08
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Rough Stone Rolling shook up my testimony a bit, but I knew Richard Bushman was committed to the gospel (heck, he was my stake president for a couple of years, though I’m not sure I knew what a stake president was at the time) so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the end my testimony settled onto a firmer foundation. That doesn’t mean I read anything by a Latter-day Saint author uncritically–I can’t help but wonder if Grant Hardy was picked on by a kid named Nephi when he was little. But these are arguments among friends. I trust their motives. Reading Stephen F here at T&S is a very different experience. I know he wants to take me somewhere I don’t want to go, or at least convince me of the propositions that took him there, so even when he says something plausible I feel like I need to check it for traps. A book on the history of the New Testament seems like it would have even more scope for saying “Scholars agree that the evidence says X” without me being able to easily evaluate that statement. Nor does it seem like a topic where you can bracket truth claims, like Hardy did with the Book of Mormon. Douglas may have the best of intentions, but the fact remains that the case he’s making destroyed his faith in the Church. I’m with RL: I’d rather read something by a non-Latter-day Saint scholar and then figure out how to reconcile what I’ve learned with my faith than read someone who tried and concluded it can’t be done.” Oct 26, 10:18
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament was a nice bridge type book for me that may have filled this niche written by a BYU professor about 15 years ago. I truly feel bad for some LDS studies folks because they seem really hedged in career wise with a small niche audience and topics. I do like BYUs pivot to devotional type complementary books and will read those every once in a while, though I’d be less likely to read their OT/NT stuff than Book of Mormon and D and C type stuff. Personally I’d rather read a general study Bible or an Oxford/Yale type book on the NT or OT if I was wanting to see a broader academic perspective.” Oct 25, 21:46
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Kendall, I think your first possibility is unavoidable. His exit contradicts his own claim that he is presenting a useful way for church members to read the New Testament. There may be valuable insights in current NT scholarship for church members, but he’s the wrong messenger. Your second possibility – the suspicion that his dissociation is clouding his perspective – would require me to read the book first to comment on, but we know enough about human nature that I’m unlikely to invest the time to find out for sure.” Oct 25, 18:23
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Chad, I appreciate the overview and recommendation.” Oct 25, 17:12
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “In other words, on Kevin Barney’s expanded scale of Barlow’s category of faith/scholarship approaches (“Reflections on the Documentary hypothesis”), I suspect he would rank a 1-1.5.” Oct 25, 16:44
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “I appreciate the transparency. However, in my view, his exit from the Church as a result of his scholarship (see his OT book) and embrace of Unitarianism suggests a deep personal conviction on his part that there is no way to reconcile scholarship with belief. That can’t help but affect how he presents the material, and I’d prefer to see LDS read either introductions that aren’t aimed at LDS at all OR read those that actively try to provide a framework in which belief is compatible with critical scholarship.” Oct 25, 16:42
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Opposed, the point of my research is to try to understand what Smith was practicing. Seems like a responsible thing for a historian to do. And yes, the policy changed to polygyny in 1843. The Republic was one of the first documents to declare female equality. In the history of feminism, early modern feminists tended to be Platonists. I’m not here to advocate for implementing the Republic, but there’s clearly a big difference between shared marriage and polygyny.” Oct 25, 12:22
