Isaiah has “blossomed like a rose” for me. I began my study of that Book 36 years ago and had one of the best classes on Isaiah from Victor Ludlow at BYU. We read from three translations including a Jewish version, and were required to do poetic and paraphrased chapter rewrites as well as to complete a verse by verse exegesis of a chapter.

The Doctrine and Covenants has become much richer when read in context of the when, where and why of the reception of the various sections. And the Pearl of Great Price stretches my spirit.

It is dismaying to see some of the things that people think the Book of Mormon teaches, and this includes members as well as critics. What a profound and transformational document it is! We all need to read it and all the standard works much more often, and feast more avidly on the words of Christ.

taking an undergrad RS Bible class.

What’s RS? Relief Society?

#

CES really isn’t getting enough credit. I took an institute class on Isaiah where we used 3 translations and discussed all the scholarly issues. The instructor was a lawyer by day, and institute teacher by night. It was a great class.

I am currently taking an undergrad RS Bible class. It is one of the liveliest classes I have ever been in. I have a huge advantage growing up LDS, knowing much more of any of the issues than my classmates. The evangelicals in the class are having a really hard time coming to the bible from another angle.

Comment by mmiles — September 23, 2008 @ 10:12 am

That is an observation of the type that needs to be made more often.

This does not have to happen on a daily or even weekly basis. But it needs to happen enough, so when the members have major questions, they know there are other resources they can go to to get more information, etc.

Perhaps that bishop would not have become an atheist, had he been allowed to hear a few other opinions that differed concerning Noah. When an all or nothing approach is given, there are only two options. If we show members that when they need it, there are other possible answers for them to us, then they have an out.

And I personally agree with the Documentary Hypothesis and a flat earth. ;-)

Depending on the needs and interest of a particular class, I find it helpful to mention a range of thinking on a topic among believers, so that students don’t unnecessarily feel like they face “All or nothing” choices. For example, there was an article in the Ensign back in 1998 which declared that only one reading of the Noah story would do for faithful LDS. When I read it, having been much impressed by Nibley’s “Before Adam” back in 1980, I just thought, “I don’t think so,” and went on to other things, irritated by but unimpressed that particular stream of LDS thought, regardless of the semi-offical context. In Australia, Bishop Simon Southerton read that article, slept on it, and woke up an atheist the next morning. He did not go quietly. It’s the brittle who shatter.

On the other hand, I also think back on B. H. Roberts’ presentation of the Study to the Brethren in 1922. He reported being disappointed that all they did was bear their testimonies, and drop the topic, but from my perspective in 2008, they were right. In 1922, the questions were premature relative to the Book of Mormon scholarship and with respect to New World Archeology. Sorenson observed that the first serious attempt to do an internal geography appeared in 1938, sixteen years after the study. Brant Gardner has stated that the information necessary to contextualize the Book of Mormon in the New World has only emerged in the last thirty years or so. By 1985, Jack Welch could write a detailed FARMS paper answering all of Roberts’ questions. I notice that publications by Smith, Palmer, and Brigham Madsen, championing the Study uniformly fail to mention the existence of Jack’s paper. So skeptics have their lapses as well. It helps to have the information that makes that obvious when we can.

In Who Wrote the Bible? Friedman tells a story about how Wellhausen resigned from his University position on the grounds that his teaching was “incapacitating the students for the ministry.” I think he did the right thing. Nowadays, there are a great many ministers, and Kevin Barney and John Sorenson and others in LDS circles, who are comfortable reconciling one or another approach to the Documentary Hypothesis with their faith. It may take time for a faith community to develop a wine bottle that can contain the new wine. I’m fine with the institutional side taking the time to wait for a wine bottle that works, rather than being tossed to and fro by every fad and crisis among scholars. But our institutions do have mechanisms for response and change, and they do get around to doing so eventually, through given variation among individuals, not uniformly.

I’m calling for a bit broader perspective is all, a bit faster responsiveness by the institutional arms, an approach that matter-of-factly acknowledges the challenges we face, that so often get thrust in our faces, whether we have been prepared to face them or not. It’s also nice when we can give credit where it is due, for the successful resolutions we have. By me, some of the most amazing bits of LDS scholarship in the past few years have been Larry Morris and Mark Ashurst McGee on the relationship of the Moroni stories to the money-digging culture. If we’ve got scholarship that good to draw upon, that in comparison makes the skeptical approaches look as slack-jawed as Wiley Coyote watching the Road Runner’s dust, then I applaud those who spread the good word to their students. One of the nice things about being LDS is that the institutional arm is not the only source of information. If we seek, we soon find those who are brimming over with interesting information and valuable perspectives. Not to mention the occasional crank and zealot.

It’s easier to deal with unknowns, obstacles, and open questions, if’ I’ve got the sense that I’m on the track of a real treasure worth the hunting.

When I am called to teach, I put in everything I have. But I’m not always called to teach, probably because I’m not suitable for everyone. At the moment, I do the Pittsburgh 2nd Ward High Priests, a small quorum, but we have fun discussions.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

I am currently taking an undergrad RS Bible class. It is one of the liveliest classes I have ever been in. I have a huge advantage growing up LDS, knowing much more of any of the issues than my classmates. The evangelicals in the class are having a really hard time coming to the bible from another angle.

Scholarly discussions are certainly making their way more into the public eye in popular media. And of course, any college that’s not extremely Christian conservative offers religion courses in which you run into these problems on the first day.