Disqus - Latest Comments for CopperQuark

Re: The Gaskill hoax, three years later

CopperQuark — Thu, 11 May 2017 18:52:48 -0000

Still being sold, eh? And as I recall, Gaskill suffered no professional consequences. RelEd is a profoundly unserious place.

Re: Mormons and Easter

CopperQuark — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:08:36 -0000

Given the popularity and ubiquity of various eclectic liturgical observances and behaviors, we apparently do feel a significant spiritual void.

On the other hand, if the people who created the lesson manuals were also tasked with liturgy we'd all probably prefer it the way it is.

Re: From the BYU New Testament Commentary to Denver Snuffer’s revelation

CopperQuark — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:32:00 -0000

Hi Bellamy,

Are you associated with the congregations that are interested in Denver Snuffer's work with scripture?

Re: From the BYU New Testament Commentary to Denver Snuffer’s revelation

CopperQuark — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:54:56 -0000

Very interesting discussion. Aside from the historical reconstruction of the variants in translation, three contextual issues seem relevant:

First, good translations don’t translate a word in isolation. Co-text matters, as does the historical and cultural context of the larger work and the pericope under consideration. This is especially so if the two have a different composition history, which is possible in this case. So far, those who have indicated that they heard these variant translations from Nibley, Hall or Griggs have not indicated what arguments from the co-text and context the scholars in question advanced to support their translation choice.

Second, the context of the discussions themselves are also significant. It is one thing to speculate while sitting among a group of academic peers who are in a position to fairly judge the validity of one’s arguments, to challenge, and to politely reject them based on the merits. It is another to make such statements in front of complete novices, or those who are early in their study of Greek, if this is done without the appropriate caveats. Under such circumstances, this would be pedagogically irresponsible. So it would be good to know if any caveats were added to the classroom or public discussions of these scholars.

Third, pedagogically irresponsible speculation about translation creates its own historical context. Those who heard such speculation without solid academic caveats are rendered vulnerable to some degree when they must distinguish between what is impossible, what is merely possible, and what is likely and appropriately supported. This sort of a judgment can be fraught among professionals, let alone those whose experience is limited to BYU’s religion or introductory classics classrooms. And this, of course, brings us ‘round to Snuffer and the challenges now presented by the translations and so forth of those who are associated with his ideas.

So although this speculation might have come from Nibley himself, or the Seven Sleepers of BYU, it may also have contributed to the current unfortunate circumstances. And that is indeed sad.

Re: From the BYU New Testament Commentary to Denver Snuffer’s revelation

CopperQuark — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:36:41 -0000

Your question is fair, and fairly posed, so I offer a partial response. I never heard Hall render that translation, but I do know several who so claim and they are eminently believable.

In addition, g.wesley notes that Phil Barlow, author of Mormons and the Bible states he has verified Hall's translation with Hall thru personal correspondence on July 16th, 2010. It's in footnote 20, page xliii, in the preface to the updated edition.

Re: Daniel Peterson and Admitting Defeat

CopperQuark — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:07:20 -0000

You'll want to read what Mogget said again. She pointed out that Peterson's use of Hutchinson's work was evidence he hadn't read the book. It could also be plagiarism, of course, but not necessarily. Peterson could have correctly linked and tagged to Hutchinson and it would still stand that he had not read, or read carefulky, the book he recommended to others because he added so little of specific interest to LDS authors. In addition, what commentors do is not her responsibility. If you are curious, why not ask her what she thinks?

Re: Daniel Peterson and Admitting Defeat

CopperQuark — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:04:46 -0000

C'mon!! Just as Hillary! will suffer no consequences for her criminal handling of classified emails, so too Peterson will be protected. Both are too important to their respective causes. Proggie or conservative, it no longer matters--rules are for the little people toiling at their mundane tasks...

Re: Too Close to Call? Daniel Peterson in the Deseret News

CopperQuark — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:35:05 -0000

For a first time offense from a student, I would require s/he re-do the work. Second offences would go to official channels. I have trouble imaging a colleague doing this sort of thing, though.

Re: Authority is Our Sacred Cow, and It Must be Domesticated

CopperQuark — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:08:58 -0000

//As for me and my house, we have no problem searching it out in our own minds.//

What criteria or evidence might be part of this "searching it out?"

Re: “On supposed tips for LDS graduate students”

CopperQuark — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:25:25 -0000

Actually, the author is a graduate of a top-tier program and regularly published in A-list journals.

Re: Nahom and Lehi’s Journey through Arabia: A Historical Perspective

CopperQuark — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:19:20 -0000

Hm. Well, that's quite impressive. I am surprised that the more active BoM apologists have not appeared to engage your stuff yet, because there is plenty to work with. But let me ask one thing to start the convo:

In your discussion of sources you note that Lehi's travel narrative contains both P and non-P material. Since P is too late for Lehi, this suggests to you that the BoM is a fabricated narrative. Those who wish to support its historicity might argue, however, that the Brass Plates contained the necessary material. How might you respond to this idea?

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:24:51 -0000

And to remove a misunderstanding, JL, we'll never sit together in HP because I'm not of the HP persuasion. I am the RS prezy, though. ;)

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:58:44 -0000

Of course, and without hesitation if that were the topic at hand.

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:14:50 -0000

I think, JL, that no one knows of pretty much _any_ serious work with ABMS. I certainly don't know of any that would meet the standards in my discipline. BYU has implicitly recognized that for years, but lately made it explicit in the choice of directions for MI.

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:05:41 -0000

The absence of names, CVs, and publications precludes engaging anything but the substance of the ideas involved. This puts Jack Fuller, with no creds, on par with CopperQuark, who has creds but doesn't chose to use them in these fora. You'll find better conversation if you engage the issue at hand, though, which focuses on two assertions: that the ABMS lacked rigor as these things are understood in the academic word and produced no new ideas in twenty years.

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:01:09 -0000

If you do not think it to be wisdom, you will need to evaluate the reasons on their merit. Suggestions of dishonesty and cowardice are ad hominen and so less than appropriate.

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:09:14 -0000

I believe the wisdom behind the use of pseudonyms on this blog has been adequately explained multiple times. If you would like to engage the argument, I think Yakov has pointed in a reasonable direction.

Re: Why BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

CopperQuark — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:55:18 -0000

No JL, that's not what he means although the interaction with scholars outside of one's own institution, organization, or immediate circle is often a good sign. I won't speak for TT, but I am always interested in the thoughts of competent reviewers and the number/quality of the work that flows from a potential insight -- fruitful might be a good word.

Re: A Recent “Anti-Mormon” Essay: Trying to Understand Gee’s Response, Part I

CopperQuark — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:42:49 -0000

Hm. What it sounds like to me is that ben Tov thinks that Gee's qualifications are such that he could have done much better. So there is an open admission that Gee is eminently qualified, rather than an amateur or a hack, which are much the same thing.

Then, ben Tov says he didn't live up to the promise of his credentials. That doesn't really seem gratuitous me; in fact, it's rather the point. Ben Tov wishes it were otherwise and knows that it could have been so.

I cannot say I see it as much of a faux pas. Failing to live up to one's potential is part of the human condition. And when one is an academic, such failures tend to show up in precisely this fashion. So, we have the opportunity to show our gracious side, accept the critique, apologize for giving offense, and move on with a determination to do better.

Beyond that, I must say that I find myself in agreement with ben Tov to the extent that I think that non-LDS scholars who write as Owen did should definitely be extended every professional courtesy. We do not have an excess of polite, interested non-Mormons from which to learn, or on whom to try out our own ideas, thus it is wise that we respect those who can find it within themselves to respect us.

Re: A Recent “Anti-Mormon” Essay: Trying to Understand Gee’s Response, Part I

CopperQuark — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:02:06 -0000

Hi JL,

What do you read as ben Tov's "gratuitous remarks about Gee's character?" Does something jump out at you, or are you speaking more generally?

Re: “On the Latest Anti-Mormon Attack on the Book of Mormon I”

CopperQuark — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:17:48 -0000

A response from Dr. Owen may be found here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu...

Re: Religious Education’s New Curriculum: A Tale of Two Authorities

CopperQuark — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:45:25 -0000

LOL, and speaking of accreditation, I can't wait to hear/see the assessment results.

Re: Unanswered Questions about the Priesthood

CopperQuark — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:26:06 -0000

Um, yes, I believe we have mentioned the need to deal with the situation gracefully.

Sometimes it helps to understand reactions as a grieving process. We lose something we value and love -- our certainty -- and we must learn to cope with it. You can, I think, see these reactions in the comments associated with various posts on this blog. Some deny the uncertainty, others are angry about it. Sometimes the anger is directed at those who disturbed their certainty; more interestingly, some who know that these uncertainties exist are angry at those who refuse to acknowledge them. Some bargain about the significance of the uncertainties, usually without really understanding the nature of the issues they are bargaining over. Depression is also to be found, although less often because of a tendency to withdraw. Acceptance carries with it its own hazards. For example, I find myself withdrawing from those who try to cling to their certainties because it is so much work to dialogue with them.

So there are no easy answers, but Uchtdorf is, I think, quite right. Uncertainty is part of the human condition and patience is learned through it -- patience with the situation and patience with one's fellows.

Re: Unanswered Questions about the Priesthood

CopperQuark — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:45:13 -0000

I have to confess that I am unsure quite how this responds to our conversation. It looks to me like you have described the temple as a place of learning -- that is, as a place in which one's questions are answered. That being the case, then it would seem that questions are actually desirable as they tend to precede learning. And in that sense, Uchtdorf's model of faith -- that question are part of the human experience of faith and patience is a faithful response to questions, seem entirely appropriate. Those who have lengthy experience with this temple paradigm as you have described it might KNOW more, but that says nothing about whether or not they have many/fewer questions yet to be answered. For my part, Uchtdorf might seem to be indicating that the most important thing one can learn is confidence that questions will be answered, not that questions are bad, and the discipline to practice patience in the meantime.

Re: Unanswered Questions about the Priesthood

CopperQuark — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:25:02 -0000

Hello, JL99,

I guess what interests me about our conversation is that you
show a bit of hesitation toward the whole matter of questions. It seems to me as if you’re willing to allow that those who are not LDS can and should have questions, but such a situation is inappropriate for Mormons. That
contrasts a bit with the faith-model of Uchtdorf and g. wesley, who both accept the presence of questions as a legitimate part of the human experience of faith. Uchtdorf seems to be saying that a faithful response to these questions is patience – that’s fairly close to Anselm’s famous “faith seeking understanding” paradigm, except perhaps a bit more passive. G. wesley seems to be saying that his fellow Mormons should take Uchtdorf’s point with the utmost seriousness – so his is a faithful response both to the uncertainties and to his church leaders.

I have say that my experience as a professor of biblical studies at a Catholic school is that faith that doesn’t admit to questions is very brittle. One of two things generally happens: As with Ehrman, when the unwarranted certainty is shattered almost everything gets tossed out the window along with the shards, or ever-more effort is required to shut out information that contradicts whatever faith claim deemed inappropriate to question. Neither of these is a good thing – indeed, I quite like Uchtdorf’s point although I when I teach these ideas I usually approach the matter by talking about how adults handle their spiritual uncertainties with grace – never taking the tensions out on others and making no rash moves that might be a cause for later regret.

But of course, all of that is just my perception and perhaps
I am wrong.