Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,583 Excellent

About Nevo

  • Rank
    Halting Between Two Opinions
  • Birthday 09/06/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,185 profile views
  1. There's a good Dialogue article on that: Todd Compton, "Was Jesus a Feminist?" (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V32N04_9.pdf)
  2. I've tried to like the New Jerusalem Bible, but I just can't. I've bought it twice now, in the giant annotated version and in the smaller reader's version. Whenever I read it side-by-side with other versions, I find I almost always prefer the other version. As far as layout goes, I really like the New English Bible:
  3. As has been mentioned, the Church has already made its own translation of the Bible in Spanish and Portuguese, revising classic Protestant versions. I'd be happy if they did the same with the KJV (although I expect the result would look a lot like the ESV). I sympathize with strappinglad's complaint regarding the "pedestrian" quality of the NRSV and other modern translations. (The NRSV, for example, translates the KJV's "sounding brass" in 1 Cor. 13:1 as "noisy gong." Wayment has "brass horn." ) I love the "numinous rumble" of the KJV as much as anyone. Like liturgical Latin, it feels sacred (and alien and mysterious). But I also think there's a case to be made for making the word of the God accessible in plain, unadorned English too. Most of the New Testament , it should be remembered, was not written in elevated Greek (the Letter to the Hebrews being a notable exception). As David Bentley Hart observes in the Introduction to his new translation of the NT: By the way, the Book of Mormon's "stylistic coarseness" provoked similar contempt when it appeared. Even before it appeared, actually:
  4. Paul H. Peterson's dissertation and articles on the Mormon Reformation are essential reading. Some more recent treatments (which happen to all be from non-LDS historians) include the following: David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, ed., Innocent Blood: Essential Narratives of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, vol. 12 of Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier (Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark, 2008), chapter 2 Polly Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848–1861 (Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark, 2009), chapters 11 and 12 David L. Bigler and Will Bagley, The Mormon Rebellion: America's First Civil War, 1857–1858 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011), chapter 5 John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet (Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2012), 254–264 You can read a firsthand account of it here: https://catalog.lds.org/assets/2ee39e17-e14d-4030-b5e4-5c7fa45cd0e4/0/145
  5. Thanks for taking the time to describe your experience in more detail. I asked the question because I've been the teacher for both EQ lessons this month and they fell well short of being "awesome." Today, about half the quorum seemed tuned out and two brothers fell asleep. We were discussing Elder Renlund's talk too. This is my first experience teaching from conference talks and I confess I haven't mastered the form yet. I'm not much of a personal experience sharer so that could be part of the problem. Anyway, I am all ears to find out what is working well for others.
  6. My experience hasn't been anything like this. What is making these lessons so great, other than the extra time?
  7. Even some historians in the 80s were providing useful context. I'm thinking particularly of the pioneering work of Ronald Walker (1984) and Alan Taylor (1987). Mark Ashurst-McGee's MA thesis from 2000 is also indispensible on this subject. None of them gets a single mention. I think this speaks to the professionalism of this article. If you ever get a chance, ask Bushman himself what he thinks about Dan Vogel's work. You might be surprised at his response. I know I was when I heard him heap praise on Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism in the summer of 1999. [Edit: Just came across this in Bushman's On the Road with Joseph Smith: An Author's Diary: "Dan has devoted himself more completely to Joseph Smith than anyone living, with his long string of scholarly books" (p. 120).]
  8. What makes you think Dehlin is trying to make money from this?
  9. Now you're just obfuscating. President Nelson said of the Maxwell Institute in the same email: “[We] need to [help them] know who they are and why they exist." That's the identity "problem" he's concerned about, not what others think of the Institute. If the Brethren feel the MI is tracking in the right direction, why would Elder Holland bring up the findings of an internal report from 2014 that "the current culture at MI may have lost some of the institute’s founding vision and original purpose"?
  10. So President Nelson referring to "the Maxwell Institute problem" and expressing concern about their "identity" in an email to Elder Holland isn't remarkable in any way?
  11. Give it a shot. They published this, after all:
  12. I am not a big fan of the Maxwell Institute right now. I'm still peeved that the one-year "digital subscription" I paid for last December--specifically so I could access the 2018 issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies--was never honored. If I want to read the latest issue of JBMS, I will need to purchase an additional online subscription through the University of Illinois Press. Or I can purchase individual articles from the issue for $14 each. And if I want to read future issues of Mormon Studies Review, well, that will be another $20 (per issue). At least JBMS is now "far more readily available to scholars working in the academy" (https://mi.byu.edu/2018-jbms/). Huzzah! Luckily, though, longtime supporters of the MI like myself still get the occasional bone tossed their way, such as "Kylan Rice’s review of a Book of Mormon-inspired book of deeply postmodern poetry by Renee Angle called Wo0" (https://mi.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/JBMS27-Rice-Sample.pdf).
  13. Another relevant passage from William Hartley's article: Certainly, it is "perfectly right" for deacons to pass the sacrament. This brings to mind something I read a while ago by a Catholic scholar: FWIW.
  14. Technically, we're asking people to call us by the third name of the church, not the original name.
  • Create New...