An example of "scholarship" from an apologist

[Archaea]

David Paulsen is in effect a new breed.

Read this excerpt to see a better example of writing and understanding. I agree with Solon, that many of the BYU types ignore an understanding of the ancient world and all too frequently cite only amongst themselves, but Paulsen is better than that.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...id=&chapid=208

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

David Paulsen is in effect a new breed.

Read this excerpt to see a better example of writing and understanding. I agree with Solon, that many of the BYU types ignore an understanding of the ancient world and all too frequently cite only amongst themselves, but Paulsen is better than that.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...id=&chapid=208

This is pretty good stuff - well grounded in ancient sources, careful in its argument, and logically organized.

I think (personally) my problems with FARMS stem from their BoM projects. The BoM and scholarship is a dead end, IMO.

On the other hand, early Christianity is wide open for scholars of multiple faiths (or non-faiths), with many texts and primary sources, and thousands of years of interpretation to work with. This is a sensible line of research for LDS-inspired writing.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

This is pretty good stuff - well grounded in ancient sources, careful in its argument, and logically organized.

I think (personally) my problems with FARMS stem from their BoM projects. The BoM and scholarship is a dead end, IMO.

On the other hand, early Christianity is wide open for scholars of multiple faiths (or non-faiths), with many texts and primary sources, and thousands of years of interpretation to work with. This is a sensible line of research for LDS-inspired writing.

A major part of FARMS's BoM work is to link early Christianity with the BoM.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

A major part of FARMS's BoM work is to link early Christianity with the BoM.

That seems like it could be problematic, but I'd have to read something to decide. Is the intent to show that Jesus established the "same" gospel in Judea and in America? The Greco-Roman influence on Christianity would be tough to parallel in America.

I'm more familiar with the "Let's show how American Indigenous practices are derived from Semitic origins, or Sorenson's "map" of BoM places.

[Archaea]

Not as good, but a discussion of apostasia.

Faulconer was a philosophy professor while I attended.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...id=&chapid=205

and here's one tackling a subject I'm a bit more familiar with.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf....&type=cmV2aWV3

[Archaea]

Here's one about Stephen Goldman at Penn State, a professor in ancient scripture.

It's really not about that, but the introduction discusses him.

Of course, Penn State is not a legitimate university.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...ign_lang&id=36

[Archaea]

And Paulsen dealing Mormon's vision of Godhead.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf....&type=cmV2aWV3

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

That seems like it could be problematic, but I'd have to read something to decide. Is the intent to show that Jesus established the "same" gospel in Judea and in America? The Greco-Roman influence on Christianity would be tough to parallel in America.

I'm more familiar with the "Let's show how American Indigenous practices are derived from Semitic origins, or Sorenson's "map" of BoM places.

Sorry, I meant link BoM with the intertestamental period, and OT pseudipigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha. Evidences of semitic practices in the BoM non-existent in the Bible.

You may have just answered a long time question I had. Why is the evidence in the old world abundant, but scant in the new? Ockham's Razor would say Joseph Smith somehow got a hold of some ancient near-eastern source.

It's apparent scholarship on the ancient new world period is scantier.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

David Paulsen is in effect a new breed.

Read this excerpt to see a better example of writing and understanding. I agree with Solon, that many of the BYU types ignore an understanding of the ancient world and all too frequently cite only amongst themselves, but Paulsen is better than that.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publ...id=&chapid=208

Oh yes, those sinister Greeks wrecked Christianity, damn them all to hell. But for "Platonists" (including Augustine) there would have been no Great Apostacy. Where would we be but for the heathen Greeks? Too bad the Christians didn't burn all their writings.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This anti-Hellenist obsession of FARMS is more distasteful than their Book of Mormon stuff. Also, purporting to define "Christianity" before the early fifth century as something monolithic as a premise for your study is nonsense.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Oh yes, those sinister Greeks wrecked Christianity, damn them all to hell. But for "Platonists" (including Augustine) there would have been no Great Apostacy. Where would we be but for the heathen Greeks? Too bad the Christians didn't burn all their writings.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This anti-Hellenist obsession of FARMS is more distasteful than their Book of Mormon stuff. Also, purporting to define "Christianity" before the early fifth century as something monolithic as a premise for your study is nonsense.

You didn't read did you?

Paulsen is NOT anti-Hellenist. Come on you're better than that.

I am not an anti-Helnelenist. Where do you get off on that?

Paulsen merely explains the matters in light of the development of thought. It is true that many Judaic thought was in opposition to Greek thought and some embraced it.

Our culture would not exist but for Greek thought. Our science would not exist. Our world would not exist.