Bokovoy’s Response

Last updated on: May 11, 2014 at 8:49 am by William Hamblin

Bokovoy’s Response 2014-05-11T08:49:54-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

David Bokovoy sent the follow as a comment. So it doesn’t get lost in the background, I’ve decided to post it here. For clarity, I’ve put David’s new comments in red, the original question someone asked David in green, and David’s previous response to the original question in blue. My comments are in black.

Since I don’t feel comfortable engaging in these types of personal exchanges, this will be my only post. The blog has been deleted. I’m posting the exchange so that your readers can see the full quote. It was written in response to a person with a friend wondering if she could stay committed to her religion (which I later learned happened to be Mormonism) since she has begun to doubt the historicity of her scriptures.

Here was the question:

“A very good friend posed it to me, very sincerely, just yesterday. If we demythologize and dehistoricize all of the supposedly historical characters in the Bible–the ones who are supposed to show us how God has interacted with human beings throughout history–than what ultimate value does the book have for us spiritually? Isn’t the whole point of the Old Testament (and all of the rest of the scriptures) to show us how an actual God interacts with actual people in actual history?”

No matter which religious faith we’re discussing, I feel strongly that believers should make room on the pew, so to speak, for fellow worshippers who may see history, revelation, or even the nature of scriptural texts differently than we do. I believe we should be able to offer help to those who are questioning find possible alternative paradigms they might adopt in an effort to retain faith. We should be able to do so free from misrepresentation and personal attacks.

With that preface, here was the response i gave with the introduction and conclusion your post omitted. It frames the discussion as offering one possible paradigm that could help someone in that situtation. I was not advocating adopting any specific view…

Thanks, XXXXX, I’m grateful for the extremely thoughtful comment. I wish I had a good answer. I suppose one possible response to your friend’s question would be this:

Rather than approach a scriptural text as a record of the way God has literally interacted with a human being, one might read the record as a tool that assists readers to feel connected to divinity by considering what other people (meaning the text’s original author) have felt about God(s) and his/their efforts to connect with humanity.

Read this way, a sacred text might serve as a springboard for spiritual self-reliance, so that the way deity is depicted as interacting with a person (either historical or fictitious) is not nearly as relevant as the way in which that account helps its reader experience her own personal connection with the divine. That connection could in fact be the exact opposite from what the actual text presents, so that even a false understanding of divinity could actually lead a reader to greater light and knowledge.

At least that’s one possible approach.

Best,

–DB

A couple of comments.

1- David didn’t answer the question of whether the original answer in blue represents his own view. Instead he states: “I was not advocating adopting any specific view.”

2- I am perfectly happy with “mak[ing] room on the pew, so to speak, for fellow worshippers who may see history, revelation, or even the nature of scriptural texts differently than we do” as David suggests. I don’t understand why this should preclude debating ideas, and examining the logical and inevitable consequences of such ideas.

3- He also tacitly accuses me of “misrepresentation and personal attacks.” First, I really don’t understand why publicly debating ideas and discussing their implications represents a “personal attack.” Secondly, I don’t understand how I have “misrepresented him.” I believe the quotation in blue represents David’s personal view. He has not denied this. He instead simply says that he is “not advocating adopting any specific view.” Those are two entirely different things. If the section in blue above does not represent David’s views, all he has to do is say so, and the problem of my supposed “misrepresentation” is solved. I’m still waiting.

Ancient Studies

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Previous Post

May 10, 2014

Seeking Clarification

Next Post

May 11, 2014 It's not Personal

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet confronted King Ahab about his sins?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jeremiah Elisha Ezekiel Elijah