Rex Lee and Michael Young

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Lee was my mentor, as he was to others. And although Holland is no slouch, Lee was the best we ever had. My eyes moisten just thinking about the goodness and accomplishments of that man. Holland may be accomplished but I wouldn't compare his academic and professional accomplishments to Lee's. OTH, few people would compare favorably to Lee.

Lee and Holland are actually an interesting contrast that illustrates what I'm talking about. Holland is a very bright guy needless to say; he is a genuine Biblical scholar of sorts. (If I recall correctly he earned his degree at Yale in some religion related field; perhaps divinity.) I used to say he was the by far best orator in the LDS church when I paid attention to such things. He is probably a good administrator. I've never heard a negative thing about him (unlike Bateman and Samuelson).

But the difference between Holland and Lee is that Lee earned great distinction in secular academic/intellectual settings. Holland hitched his star to the LDS church early and made his career within its pricincts. That's not necessarily an ignoble way to earn a living, but someone like Lee will always bring BYU more distinction in the world at large and I submit more of the right kind of vision and values. If BYU really cared about this sort of thing they would have made hiring Michael Young as president a top priority. He has credentials reminiscent of Lee, including that he was a tenured professor at Columbia, occupied a distinguished endowed chair there, and later was dean of George Washington law school.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lee and Holland are actually an interesting contrast that illustrates what I'm talking about. Holland is a very bright guy needless to say; he is a genuine Biblical scholar of sorts. (If I recall correctly he earned his degree at Yale in some religion related field; perhaps divinity.) I used to say he was the by far best orator in the LDS church when I paid attention to such things. He is probably a good administrator. I've never heard a negative thing about him (unlike Bateman and Samuelson).

But the difference between Holland and Lee is that Lee earned great distinction in secular academic/intellectual settings. Holland hitched his star to the LDS church early and made his career within its pricincts. That's not necessarily an ignoble way to earn a living, but someone like Lee will always bring BYU more distinction in the world at large and I submit more of the right kind of vision and values. If BYU really cared about this sort of thing they would have made hiring Michael Young as president a top priority. He has credentials reminiscent of Lee, including that he was a tenured professor at Columbia, occupied a distinguished endowed chair there, and later was dean of George Washington law school.

I agree that Young would have been a fantastic hire, and his hiring by the U disappointed me.

Here's hoping the next hire is something BYU grads can smile about.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Holland is a very bright guy needless to say; he is a genuine Biblical scholar of sorts.

I certainly agree with the first sentence, but I am not sure the second is true in academic/scholarly sense (of course maybe that is why you used the modifier "of sorts"). It is probably true from the the perspective of most Mormons since he spent most of his early professional career in CES and then in BYU's religious education department and, of course, now he is an apostle. However, I believe his PhD is in American Studies.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I certainly agree with the first sentence, but I am not sure the second is true in academic/scholarly sense (of course maybe that is why you used the modifier "of sorts"). It is probably true from the the perspective of most Mormons since he spent most of his early professional career in CES and then in BYU's religious education department and, of course, now he is an apostle. However, I believe his PhD is in American Studies.

He doesn't appear to be an academic scholar in terms of scriptural understanding, but probably well-versed in LDS application of scripture. I have never read or heard him discuss textual critical arguments, or address matters related to a critical examination of the authentic texts. Most, if not all, of his discussions, as do most LDS discussions of scripture, relate to thematic observations and applications. They are not psychological or analytical in nature.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He doesn't appear to be an academic scholar in terms of scriptural understanding, but probably well-versed in LDS application of scripture. I have never read or heard him discuss textual critical arguments, or address matters related to a critical examination of the authentic texts. Most, if not all, of his discussions, as do most LDS discussions of scripture, relate to thematic observations and applications. They are not psychological or analytical in nature.

Agreed, he is not an exegete in a scholarly sense. However, he will throw in an appeal to the underlying Greek here and there. If I remember correctly he did this in the very recent leadership training broadcast when he equated virtue and power in the NT (although I thought the rest of the application was surprising because he then applied it to a Book of Mormon setting but I may have misunderstood his point).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I certainly agree with the first sentence, but I am not sure the second is true in academic/scholarly sense (of course maybe that is why you used the modifier "of sorts"). It is probably true from the the perspective of most Mormons since he spent most of his early professional career in CES and then in BYU's religious education department and, of course, now he is an apostle. However, I believe his PhD is in American Studies.

That is why I said of sorts. He can work his way through the Old Testament on memory and extemporizing as well as anyone could. But no, he is not a real mainstream religious scholar.

Neither was Nibley, in my view. If in another universe I were given the choice between Holland and Nibley as to which one to have a glass of wine and a searching discussion with I'd probably choose Holland.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Neither was Nibley, in my view. If in another universe I were given the choice between Holland and Nibley as to which one to have a glass of wine and a searching discussion with I'd probably choose Holland.

Well, you must not be following grapevine's book recommendations or you would know better.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6881

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That is why I said of sorts. He can work his way through the Old Testament on memory and extemporizing as well as anyone could. But no, he is not a real mainstream religious scholar.

Neither was Nibley, in my view. If in another universe I were given the choice between Holland and Nibley as to which one to have a glass of wine and a searching discussion with I'd probably choose Holland.

Nibley was at least trained in exegesis, whereas I'm not certain Holland is. Holland speaks well and is well-versed, but I prefer listening to Nibley to Holland.

I prefer Oaks to both of them, and really liked Maxwell.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nibley was at least trained in exegesis, whereas I'm not certain Holland is. Holland speaks well and is well-versed, but I prefer listening to Nibley to Holland.

I prefer Oaks to both of them, and really liked Maxwell.

Nibley, also published articles in scholarly journals (although maybe not enough to entice SeattleUte to dinner). See, for example:

1. The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme,
Hugh Nibley, Church History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 131-154.

2. The Hierocentric State, Hugh Nibley The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 226-253.

3. Christian Envy of the Temple, Hugh Nibley, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jan., 1960), pp. 229-240.

4. Sparsiones, Hugh Nibley, Classical Journal, Vol 40, Bo .9, June 1945.

5. Tenting, Toll, and Taxing, Hugh Nibley, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1966), pp. 599-630.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Nibley, also published in articles scholarly journals (although maybe not enough to entice SeattleUte to dinner). See, for example:

1. The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme,
Hugh Nibley, Church History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 131-154.

2. The Hierocentric State, Hugh Nibley The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 226-253.

3. Christian Envy of the Temple, Hugh Nibley, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jan., 1960), pp. 229-240.

4. Sparsiones, Hugh Nibley, Classical Journal, Vol 40, Bo .9, June 1945.

5. Tenting, Toll, and Taxing, Hugh Nibley, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1966), pp. 599-630.

I liked Nibley and recognized him for what he was, a well-trained Church apologist. Seattle is of the belief Nibley was a hoax with no training, no abilities, and completely devoid of any scholarship. In my few encounters with him, although his train of thought was oft difficult to follow, he demonstrated in personal meetings considerable knowledge, at least well beyond my paltry set of knowledge. He had significant linguistic abilities. Now, I'm aware some of his arguments aren't favored by nonLDS, but so what, he's not the hack Seattle depicts him as.