“No one at BYU has a PhD in Ancient Book of Mormon Studies” WHY?

This title seems impossible, but it is true. No one at BYU has a PhD in Ancient Book of Mormon Studies! No One! “This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer “President Brigham Young admonished Karl G. Maeser not to teach even the times table without the Spirit of the Lord. How much more essential is that Spirit in the research, the writing, and the teaching of Church history.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer  “Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify. The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer” “Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith. What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer This article below by William Hamblin is a good article to review. This change at BYU discussed below was the precursor to the creation of the fantasy map BYU is now teaching all new students in the Book of Mormon classes. (See Below) Editor’s Note: Why do Intellectuals, Scholars, Professors and Historians like to fiddle with and come up with net theories that make them feel good? The need the praise of those who peer review their books, and the more these intellectuals get others to support their pet theory, the more popular they become, just like the Great and Spacious Building. Judge Wisely. This period of time (2015) could have been part of a shift toward reaffirming the the one Cumorah truth, but instead, it appears BYU was shifting away from the Book of Mormon as an actual history altogether.

I can now see how the historians desire, or maybe even mandate to be academic and secular has eroded the regular Church members testimony in many ways. With that need to share all sides without pushing true doctrine is simply a big problem. I never realized this until speaking with people over the previous few years. I am very sad that good worthy members of this church in high scholarly positions have seemingly led many astray. It’s heartbreaking to me. I would sure like you readers of this blog to team up with me or others to see how we can assist with this problem.

The tools of BYU historians in academia require that they be religion neutral, if not antagonistic to faith and religion, in order to be published. It has been unfortunate that members of the Church have supposed that these historians and their publications, podcasts, etc. were attempts to publish truth. It seems to me even more unfortunate that these publications to non-believing academics have, at times, become standard fare to teach the history of the Restoration as if now we have access to the real truth, which was carefully hidden from us previously.

The sad part for me is the judgments of earlier prophets and apostles as being wrong or “on the wrong side of history,” as the new historians might term it. I have noted that the fruits of the new interpretations and accepting of previously discounted sources have not been fruits of faith and strengthening testimony. Rather, the fruits have often been a loss of faith and testimony. That is a challenge for me to witness as it has had such a sad influence on individuals and families.

BYU Studies Submission Rules

“BYU Studies publishes academic articles, personal essays, poetry, art, and historical documents that are informed by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Submissions are invited from all authors who seek truth “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), discern the harmony between revelation and research, value both academic and spiritual inquiry, and recognize that knowledge without charity is nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Source: Contributions from all disciplines are invited. To be considered for publication, a submission should be informed by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. It should declare a clear and consequential thesis and make a coherent and complete case for it. It should situate significant new knowledge in the context of what is already known. The writing should be praiseworthy and accessible to educated but non specialist readers.” I was told by a BYU Professor that writing something NEW was critical. He told me many historians revisit issues of controversy and try and bring up new ideas just so they can get accetped or published. Sometimes little thought goes into what is true, but like scientisst today they make up a theory and then convince others to go along with them. Finding truth today os so “old school”.

---

How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 BY WILLIAM HAMBLIN I maintain that numerous policies adopted by a wide range of BYU administrators over the past thirty years have had the effect—intended or unintended—of destroying ancient Book of Mormon studies as a fledgling discipline.  Here’s how. College and Department Politics.  Although many people might find it incredible, every single BYU administrator on every level of the administration has explicitly discouraged me from doing ancient Book of Mormon studies in my annual performance (“stewardship”) reviews.  They have all explicitly told me to focus my research and publications on non-Book of Mormon topics, such as the crusades.  In part this was good advice on their part; they were telling me if you want to be successful at BYU, don’t publish on the Book of Mormon or publish with FARMS or later Interpreter.  More broadly, you must publish outside the “BYU Bubble”—that is, BYU or LDS sponsored publications.  Only people hired to teach Mormon history should publish on Mormonism.  Only publications in non-LDS-related venues are viewed as legitimate scholarship.  Since non-LDS publications generally do not accept ancient Book of Mormon studies as a legitimate discipline, this essentially means that no publication on ancient Book of Mormon studies can be acceptable as authentic scholarship at BYU. This policy is also reflected in two other phenomena moving beyond mere verbal discouragement.  Over the past twenty-five years I submitted several research proposals to my college on Book of Mormon related topics; none was ever accepted.  This is in clear contrast to many of my non-Book of Mormon research proposals, many of which were accepted.  Merit pay raises, based largely on academic performance did not include ancient Book of Mormon publications as authentic scholarship.  The policy was crystal clear.  When I published non-Book of Mormon related books or articles, I received merit pay raises.  When I published Book of Mormon-related books or articles, I received no merit pay raise.  My promotion to full-professor a few years ago was rejected by my college dean precisely because my Book of Mormon publications were not viewed by him as legitimate scholarship.  I was informed explicitly by the dean that I needed more non-LDS-related publications to be promoted—despite the fact that I had two books and numerous non-LDS articles in my vita.  (The dean’s decision was overturned by the university.) So, my experience throughout my 25 years at BYU was that ancient Book of Mormon studies were not considered an authentic discipline.  Publications in that field were not legitimate scholarly work.  Such research was not supported by the college.   Publications in ancient Book of Mormon studies did not contribute to either merit pay raises, nor promotion.  Such policies not only obviously discourage young scholars from publishing in ancient Book of Mormon studies, and even  overtly punish those who do so against BYU policy and the universal advice of administrators. Religious Education.  One would expect that the College of Religious education would be the natural home for intensive ancient Book of Mormon studies.  It is not.  First, as I’ll note below, the curriculum on the Book of Mormon at BYU is both superficial and extremely limited.  Second, many people teaching the Book of Mormon have no professional interest or training in ancient Book of Mormon studies—or ancient scriptural studies of any sort.  Finally, Religious Education focuses on teaching what I call the “Three Ds”—doctrine, devotion, and daily application.  Those three approaches to the Book of Mormon are certainly important and legitimate.  But they do not provide the students much opportunity for intensive text-based academic study of the Book of Mormon.  The whole academic culture of Religious Education is directed towards teaching the basic principles of the Gospel, which is fine, and indeed most important.  The problem is that they also actively prevent any classes being taught at an advanced level, and essentially discourage the serious academic study of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.  As far as I can tell, this restriction represents an intentional policy by the BYU Religious Education administration.  They don’t want the Book of Mormon studied contextually as an ancient historical document.  They want it studied only as a theological and ethical document.  

BYU Curriculum and the Book of Mormon.  Currently, there are only two courses that BYU students can take on the Book of Mormon: REL A 121: The Book of Mormon (first half), and REL A 122 : The Book of Mormon (second half).  Both are introductory courses, and are only two hours long, making a total of only four hours.  Even if a student wants to do more in depth study of the Book of Mormon, it is impossible to do so anywhere at BYU or in the church.  BYU classes on the Book of Mormon are perpetually stuck at the introductory level.  Furthermore, the new Book of Mormon class offered by BYU—Rel A 275 “Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon”—is now a single two hour class approaching the Book of Mormon thematically.  In other words, it’s a glorified Sunday School class.  It’s getting more superficial. 

What BYU actually needs is a robust curriculum in the Book of Mormon.  Most simply, BYU could offer in depth courses on each of the major books of the Book of Mormon, combining some of the smaller books into one.  Note that Religious Education offers a class on Isaiah, but no class on the book of Alma or Helaman or Nephi?  Why?  Beyond in depth classes on major books of the Book of Mormon, BYU should offer classes on Book of Mormon geography, history, archaeology, linguistics, literature, theology, culture, language (ancient Near East and Maya), textual criticism, religion, law, warfare, apocalyptic, reception history, the Bible in the Book of Mormon, etc.  BYU could, if the administration wanted, have a program in Book of Mormon studies, and offer two dozen different advanced courses on the Book of Mormon, certainly enough for a major.  But it doesn’t.  This cannot be an oversight or random chance.  This is obviously a conscious policy that implements curriculum decision which minimizes the opportunities of students to study the Book of Mormon as a serious academic discipline at BYU.  Which, for all practical purposes, means students can’t do ancient Book of Mormon studies at all, anywhere.

Graduate Studies and the Book of Mormon.  The only way that young LDS scholars can study the Book of Mormon in graduate school is to study it as a nineteenth century text in a secular religious studies program, or US history program.  There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with this.  But what this means is that one cannot do graduate work anywhere in the world in ancient Book of Mormon Studies.  Unremarkably, young scholars are not doing ancient Book of Mormon studies.  Furthermore, no one teaching has at BYU has a PhD in ancient Book of Mormon Studies.  BYU has completely failed in its mission to prepare young LDS scholars for ancient Book of Mormon studies.

BYU and the Destruction of FARMS.  I’ve written extensively on the debacle of BYU’s destruction of FARMS.  FARMS originated outside of BYU precisely because of the policies of BYU that I’ve outlined above, which prevented ancient Book of Mormon scholarship from thriving at BYU.  Then, not satisfied with undermining ancient Book of Mormon studies on their own campus, BYU administrators decided they should undermine it outside of campus as well.  Their goal in forcing FARMS to join was not because they wanted to support ancient Book of Mormon studies.  Quite the contrary.  BYU wanted to gain control of land that FARMS owned, and be able to manipulate potential donations to FARMS.  BYU administrators made a number of promises to the FARMS board at the time of the hostile takeover—almost none of them have been fulfilled.  Furthermore, in the past three years, BYU administrators have completely transformed the direction of the Maxwell Institute from ancient scriptural studies to modern Mormon Studies in its broadest sense.  As I’ve detailed in blogs over the past few years, BYU has taken what was once the most productive center of research and publications on ancient Book of Mormon studies—which came into existence precisely because of the failure of BYU in this regard—and transformed it into Sunstone South. Conclusion.  I don’t know what the goals or motives of the BYU administrators have been over the past thirty years in relationship to the Book of Mormon.   I suspect they haven’t actually considered the implications of their policy decisions at all.  Their focus is on other important aspects of running a university.  However, the law of unintended (and perhaps even some intended) consequences has resulted in a series of administrative policy decisions over the past thirty years all of which have combined to result in undermining serious ancient Book of Mormon studies at BYU.  Indeed, if their actual goal was to intentionally minimize the discipline of ancient Book of Mormons studies, they could have achieved that goal no better than by making precisely the decisions they have made. SOURCE: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/09/08/how-byu-destroyed-ancient-book-of-mormon-studies/#comment-2255719944

Online Comments about this article below

Daron Fraley • Just my opinion, but BYU has a serious pride problem. For example . . . BYU is a CHURCH school that wants to be the “Harvard of the West”, that refuses to accept many of the credits that come from BYU-Idaho, another church sponsored school, because their instruction is not good enough? Ridiculous. Great-and-Spacious-Building kind of ridiculousness. I was among the fortunate few to take the first of four Honors Book of Mormon semesters with Hugh Nibley in the basement TV studio, fall of 1988. Incredible class. A masterful teacher… he is the smartest person I have ever met. I am sure he is rolling over in his grave to see what these policies have done to Book of Mormon scholarship. This post is another great reason why I despise universities. They all seem to be about back-scratching, agenda-pushing, exclusionary-policy-driving self-indulging-nonsense. NOT scholarship anchored in truth. It’s sad. Really sad. Wonderboywonderings . 1000X yes! Bill, you hit this one WAY outta the park. Thank you so much for shedding light on this situation. For 20 years since i was a BYU student I’ve been lamenting the generally superficial and perennially-adolescent approach to the Book of Mormon CHURCH-WIDE. What most of the commentators on here are missing–and what even you didn’t broach–is that the effects of this reverberate beyond the confines of BYU itself. Because of these anti-BOM attitudes at BYU, most students are NOT EVEN EXPOSED to a more critical/rigorous/in-depth approach to studying the BOM. Consequently, the most influential members (the so-called “cream” who go to BYU) carry this stunted paradigm with them throughout the world. As a result, the entire church is affected and its overall appreciation for, understanding of, and faith in, the BOM will only go so deep and NO DEEPER. EVER. The decisions made at BYU also affect the Seminary and Institute programs, only multiplying the problem (Not to mention lesson manuals in Sunday school). Flood the earth with the Book of Mormon, they say, just don’t flood it too seriously–or at the Church’s flagship university and school of higher learning. Knowing now that it is internal politics, personal views of certain administrators, and no-doubt bureaucratic tyranny that is throttling progress in Book of Mormon study and scholarship, I openly question the use of my consecrated tithing funds and call for an open and transparent inquiry into these policies. I want to know if the Brethren explicitly endorse this dumbing down of religious education and inquiry. As a historical consumer of FARMS output, I’ve been extremely disappointed by its demise. As a member of the church, I’m outraged at the real damage the BYU religious education department has done to faith in, study of, and championing of, the Book of Mormon.Many people have asked about the sealed portion of the plates and when they’ll be revealed, or why doesn’t the church get more revelation, etc. Invariably, most parrot the whole “we don’t have enough faith” explanation. Taking that at face value, perhaps a contributing factor to a lack of faith is that conscious decisions have been made by people in positions of leadership and influence to not take the Book of Mormon as seriously as what it purports to be would demand. After all, “I don’t think we should really take the Book of Mormon seriously, or study it for what it purports to be,” said Joseph Smith never. StevenWS If BYU does not take the BoM seriously enough to have a detailed studies program, it seems reasonable to ask if they believe it to be true as purported. If they cannot answer in the affirmative, then as someone else asked, why is the church supporting the school with tithing funds? Certainly there is as much validity in studying the BoM as an ancient text as there is in gender studies, woman studies, male patriarchy discussions and other like available courses of study. These, too, are perceived by many (albeit not in acadamia) as frivolous, but are present at many institutions of higher learning. Catholics may study Catholicism at Catholic universities; Evangelicals study their Bible teachings at their universities. Why is BYU not studying the Book of Mormon in depth at an LDS university? Sounds like a reasonable question to me. Education is the power to think clearly, the power to act well in the world’s work, and the power to appreciate life.— Brigham Young

Brother Maeser, I want you to remember that you ought not to teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God.—Brigham Young

I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I love their focus on intelligent education. I however don’t like that we allow far too many Liberal teachings enter our door without saying things are just theories or possibilities. Our students have a hard time deciding between a truth of Man and a truth of God. Many Professors are like the world and teach very liberal concepts without sharing the other conservative side. Both sides need equal representation.