(I know that if I were a GA*, I’d take into consideration the treatment BRM often receives in scholarly discussions….)

_________
* And if I ever am, smallaxe, then I’m making you write all my talks.

Given most GA books are on discussing doctrine, and not on exegesis, I don’t think there is much on the shift considered above. Nibley was allowed to play in his area of expertise, and write on it.

We can probably name on one hand the GA/scholars that did attempt to combine religion and science(Talmage, Widstoe, Roberts, any others?). I do agree we are leaving the JFSmith/McConkie era, where their dynasty of doctrinal interpretation is slowly fading away.

Today the GAs are moving their focus away from speculative areas and more into the direction Pres Packer has given to “teach the doctrine.” This takes us, IMO, to a place where the Church is giving scholarship back to the scholars, and retaining the determination of what is and isn’t doctrine – the things that save and exalt.

In the Catholic tradition for example, tradition is authoritative on all sorts of doctrinal points, but it is developed by a quasi-academic process over centuries where cardinals and the like bear naturally disproportionate influence, but cannot overturn a doctrine overnight without a lot of persuading relative to where the previous tradition got it wrong. Papal encyclicals make great reading.

It seems to me that LDS scholars are highly respected by the general authorities for their knowledge on technical points. I think they are a long way from being respected in a way that might quasi-authoritatively resolve endless disputes about non-technical points where the Church doesn’t see fit to have a position. Not without a consensus.

Without leadership involvement on certain methodological issues, I don’t think that a quasi-authoritative consensus on most non-technical points can even develop. And even such a consensus would never be considered authoritative by most people until it was endorsed by the Church leadership.

What do you think of my point in #9?

That’s part of the reason I raise this issue. It’s hard to tell how generalizable our experiences are. Has my circle simply changed over the years, or is this a much larger phenomenon?

That said, allow me to try to push back on this a little. Besides the points that David G. and Dave mention, allow me to raise at least one more.

Compare the authors of the books that come up at Deseret Book under “Scripture Reference”: http://deseretbook.com/store/group/13 (or here’s one specifically for the NT: http://deseretbook.com/store/browse/97 ) and “General Authorities”: http://deseretbook.com/store/browse/266

The genres are markedly different. It seems like the last GA to do anything that would fall under “Scripture Reference” would be BRM. Practically all of the “Scripture Reference” books are written by academics (although granted that some of them are not trained to deal with the texts). However, if you look at most of the early “General Authority” books, most of those listed are closer in genre to “Scripture Reference” (for instance “Jesus the Christ” and “Lectures on Faith”).

This is just one, perhaps minor, arguable point; but I think it does at least demonstrate a shift away from being “reliable sources of information” for certain kinds of (significant) bodies of knowledge which they formerly laid claim to.

“I love what Elder McConkie’s brother [supposedly] said to him: “You might be a General Authority, but that doesn’t mean you are an authority in general.””

TYD