Salt Press, And Two New Books

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm happy to announce the founding of a new press, and its publication of two new books about the Book of Mormon:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/03/actually-reading-book-of-mormon.html

[Sky]

Thanks for sharing! It will be interesting to see what this adds to the table. I hope that it reaches more people as opposed to a primarily LDS audience. Would you mind sharing more details with us about the ground this covers about the Book of Mormon that we may not have known or underappreciated?

[Gohan]

Currently downloading 'Experiment on the Word' and 'Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah'. I'm stoked. Homework tonight is going to take a bit of a hit from it though...

[zerinus]

I'm happy to announce the founding of a new press, and its publication of two new books about the Book of Mormon:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...-of-mormon.html

Thank you Daniel. I Just had a look at the PDF version of the book, Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: Reading 2 Nephi 26–27 published by the Salt Press. The "Series Introduction" (p. viii) reads as follows:

“This series of books is based on a novel idea: that Mormons do theology. Doing theology is different from weighing history, deciding doctrine, or inspiring devotion. Theology speculates. It experiments with questions and advances hypotheses. It tests new angles and pulls loose threads. It reads old texts in careful and creative ways.

“Theology, in this sense, is not an institutional practice. It has no force beyond the charity it demonstrates and it decides no questions beyond what the Brethren have settled. It is the work of individuals who, for its own sake, want to see what ideas about Mormonism may, at least for a time, fly.

“The Mormon Theology Seminar aims to promote such work. The Seminar is both unofficial and independent. It is scholarly in orientation and cooperative in practice. It focuses on organizing short-term, seminar-style collaborations that, over the span of a few months of intense discussion, consider specific questions about Mormon theology through close readings of basic Mormon texts.

“The books in this series make public the papers that result from these seminars. They display, in print, theology as a Mormon ideal.”

Didn't I hear you say somewhere that there are no theologians at BYU, and in fact no Mormon theologians?!

[LeSellers]

Didn't I hear you say somewhere that there are no theologians at BYU, and in fact no Mormon theologians?!

I don't know about Dan'l Peterson, but I have said that many times. What we might call "classic theology" is a weak excuse to cover those times when one does not have prophets. Peter was no theologian. James and John were not. Nephi wasn't, and Joseph Smith didn't study theology.

Joseph said something like, "I can learn more in five minutes looking into heaven than you can by studying for years." He was not speaking about Astronomy.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Thank you Daniel. I Just had a look at the PDF version of the book, Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: Reading 2 Nephi 26–27 published by the Salt Press.

If you truly study those chapters, you might uncover their deeper meaning.

[wenglund]

In the Summary Report for, Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah, it talks of "...Nephi, as a careful, conscientious author, incorporated Isaiah’s text into his own with purpose and precision."

I am wondering if there is any precedent for this in the ancient old world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2012 by wenglund

[LeSellers]

I am wondering if there is any president for this in the ancient old world.

The only "presidents" I know of in the ancient world are the three of which Daniel (of lions' den fame) was one.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Didn't I hear you say somewhere that there are no theologians at BYU, and in fact no Mormon theologians?!

Okay, I found it. This is what you had said in your blog, and what I had replied!

Edited March 8, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I don't know about Dan'l Peterson, but I have said that many times.

Knowing you, I am sure you would!

What we might call "classic theology" is a weak excuse to cover those times when one does not have prophets.

There is no such thing as "classic theology".

Peter was no theologian. James and John were not. Nephi wasn't, and Joseph Smith didn't study theology.

Peter was a theologian, James was a theologian, John was a theologian, Nephi was a theologian, and Joseph Smith was a theologian.

Joseph said something like, "I can learn more in five minutes looking into heaven than you can by studying for years." He was not speaking about Astronomy.

Great! That makes him a fantastic theologian!

Edited March 8, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

In the Summary Report for, Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah, it talks of "...Nephi, as a careful, conscientious author, incorporated Isaiah’s text into his own with purpose and precision."

I am wondering if there is any president [sic] for this in the ancient old world.

Biblical prophets and Apostles quote from each other all the time; but they don't use modern scholarly conventions of enclosing them in quotation marks, or providing references, or even always mentioning that they are quoting from someone else. Very often those quotes are not verbatim, but paraphrases expressed in their own words. See here and here for examples of OT quotes in the NT.

[wenglund]

Biblical prophets and Apostles quote from each other all the time; but they don't use modern scholarly conventions of enclosing them in quotation marks, or providing references, or even always mentioning that they are quoting from someone else. Very often those quotes are not verbatim, but paraphrases expressed in their own words. See here and here for examples of OT quotes in the NT.

I appreciate this. Are you aware of any OT examples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

I appreciate this. Are you aware of any OT examples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I couldn’t find a website that lists them (probably not putting in the right search terms); but I know for a fact that there are plenty. This example comes to my mind off the top of my head:

Micah 4:

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

There are many more. Around 60% or 70% of the books of Kings and Chronicles are identical. The Psalms quote extensively from other parts of the OT, especially from the five books of Moses. Many direct references are made to other books of the OT, including missing books which have disappeared, and no longer exist in the canon, such as the following:

1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45; 2 Kings 1:18; 8:23; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 21, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 25:26; 32:32

If you put that complicated search in the old scripture site, it comes up with this result, which is absolutely brilliant. If you try it with the new scripture site, it comes up with this result, which is absolutely hopeless. I don’t know why they bother with the new site. It is utterly worthless for doing complicated searches. I mentioned it here a couple of years ago, and one of their men responded and promised to do something about it, but not much has changed.

[LeSellers]

There is no such thing as "classic theology".

Take that up with Rob Bowman, He introduced the term to us a few months back.

Peter was a theologian, James was a theologian, John was a theologian, Nephi was a theologian, and Joseph Smith was a theologian.

Not if you understand "theologian" to mean someone who studies scripture and then applies human thought processes to it without regard to current revelation. Which is what theologians in most Seminaries do.

It goes like this: Moses wrote this, and Isaiah wrote that. Plato didn't like matter, so God is immaterial.

Great! That makes him a fantastic theologian!

Your definition of "theologian" and mine are radically different.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Biblical prophets and Apostles quote from each other all the time; but they don't use modern scholarly conventions of enclosing them in quotation marks, or providing references, or even always mentioning that they are quoting from someone else. Very often those quotes are not verbatim, but paraphrases expressed in their own words. .

Well, that proves the Bible is false because we all know that anything that purports to be scripture cannot quote or allude to other scripture, even with attestation. We know this because the antis have told us again and again that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God because "Nephi" quoted Isaiah.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I couldn’t find a website that lists them (probably not putting in the right search terms); but I know for a fact that there are plenty. This example comes to my mind off the top of my head:

Micah 4:

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

There are many more. Around 60% or 70% of the books of Kings and Chronicles are identical. The Psalms quote extensively from other parts of the OT, especially from the five books of Moses. Many direct references are made to other books of the OT, including missing books which have disappeared, and no longer exist in the canon, such as the following:

1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45; 2 Kings 1:18; 8:23; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 21, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 25:26; 32:32

If you put that complicated search in the old scripture site, it comes up with this result, which is absolutely brilliant. If you try it with the new scripture site, it comes up with this result, which is absolutely hopeless. I don’t know why they bother with the new site. It is utterly worthless for doing complicated searches. I mentioned it here a couple of years ago, and one of their men responded and promised to do something about it, but not much has changed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

Not if you understand "theologian" to mean someone who studies scripture and then applies human thought processes to it without regard to current revelation. Which is what theologians in most Seminaries do.

It goes like this: Moses wrote this, and Isaiah wrote that. Plato didn't like matter, so God is immaterial.

Your definition of "theologian" and mine are radically different.

Lehi

Then you don't understand what theology is. Mormons generally don't. Joseph Smith defines theology (quoting from Buck's Theological Dictionary) as follows:

Question. What is theology?

Answer. It is that revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God - his relations to us - the dispensations of his providence - his will with respect to our actions - and his purposes with respect to our end (Buck's Theological Dictionary, page 582).

He is not inventing that definition himself. He is quoting a standard, non-LDS theological reference book. Here are some additional definitions of theology I found on the Internet (none of them as good as the one Joseph Smith quotes, but still good):

Definitions of Theology

The Free Dictionary:

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings

2. a specific branch of this study, undertaken from the perspective of a particular group

3. the systematic study of Christian revelation concerning God’s nature and purpose, esp through the teaching of the Church

4. a specific system, form, or branch of this study, esp for those preparing for the ministry or priesthood

Wikipedia, Theology:

Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as “reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity”; Richard Hooker defined “theology” in English as “the science of things divine”.

Dictionary.com:

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God’s relation to the world

Introduction to Theology:

Greek, theos, “God”

Greek, logos, “word, study, science”

thus, “the science or study of God”

Augustine: theology is “rational discussion respecting the deity”

Charles Hodge: “science of the facts of divine revelation”

Louis Berkhof: the “systematized knowledge of God in his various relations to the universe. . . . Theology is the effect which the divine revelation, embodied in Scripture, produces in the sphere of systematic thought. Theology is the fruit of the reflection of the church on the truth revealed in the Word of God.”

brainyquote.com

The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice; divinity; (as more commonly understood) “the knowledge derivable from the Scriptures, the systematic exhibition of revealed truth, the science of Christian faith and life.”

thesacredpage.com

In the most general meaning of the term, theology is the science of revealed religion. It is called positive theology when it undertakes to make an inventory of dogma, the historical development of which it does not hesitate to trace.

Here is a very nice, long definition of theology:

gotquestions.org:

Question: “What is the definition of theology?”

Answer: The word “theology” comes from two Greek words that combined mean “the study of God.” Christian theology is simply an attempt to understand God as He is revealed in the Bible. No theology will ever fully explain God and His ways because God is infinitely and eternally higher than we are. Therefore, any attempt to describe Him will fall short (Romans 11:33-36). However, God does want us to know Him insofar as we are able, and theology is the art and science of knowing what we can know and understand about God in an organized and understandable manner. Some people try to avoid theology because they believe it is divisive. Properly understood, though, theology is uniting. Proper, biblical theology is a good thing; it is the teaching of God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The study of theology, then, is nothing more than digging into God’s Word to discover what He has revealed about Himself. When we do this, we come to know Him as Creator of all things, Sustainer of all things, and Judge of all things. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of all things. When Moses asked who was sending him to Pharaoh, God replied “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). The name I AM indicates personality. God has a name, even as He has given names to others. The name I AM stands for a free, purposeful, self-sufficient personality. God is not an ethereal force or a cosmic energy. He is the almighty, self-existing, self-determining Being with a mind and a will—the “personal” God who has revealed Himself to humanity through His Word, and through His Son, Jesus Christ.

To study theology is to get to know God in order that we may glorify Him through our love and obedience. Notice the progression here: we must get to know Him before we can love Him, and we must love Him before we can desire to obey Him. As a byproduct, our lives are immeasurably enriched by the comfort and hope He imparts to those who know, love, and obey Him. Poor theology and a superficial, inaccurate understanding of God will only make our lives worse instead of bringing the comfort and hope we long for. Knowing about God is crucially important. We are cruel to ourselves if we try to live in this world without knowing about God. The world is a painful place, and life in it is disappointing and unpleasant. Reject theology and you doom yourself to life with no sense of direction. Without theology, we waste our lives and lose our souls.

All Christians should be consumed with theology—the intense, personal study of God—in order to know, love, and obey the One with whom we will joyfully spend eternity.

All of these are true and correct definitions, some better than others. All of these are from non-LDS sources. LDS, however, generally don't have a clues what theology is. Even their best scholars don't. In the quote I gave earlier, from one of the books by Salt Press, it said the following (highlights added):

“This series of books is based on a novel idea: that Mormons do theology. Doing theology is different from weighing history, deciding doctrine, or inspiring devotion. Theology speculates. It experiments with questions and advances hypotheses. It tests new angles and pulls loose threads. It reads old texts in careful and creative ways.

“Theology, in this sense, is not an institutional practice. It has no force beyond the charity it demonstrates and it decides no questions beyond what the Brethren have settled. It is the work of individuals who, for its own sake, want to see what ideas about Mormonism may, at least for a time, fly.

“The Mormon Theology Seminar aims to promote such work. The Seminar is both unofficial and independent. It is scholarly in orientation and cooperative in practice. It focuses on organizing short-term, seminar-style collaborations that, over the span of a few months of intense discussion, consider specific questions about Mormon theology through close readings of basic Mormon texts.

“The books in this series make public the papers that result from these seminars. They display, in print, theology as a Mormon ideal.”

This is an utterly false perception of what theology is. Theology does NOT "speculate," and it very much IS about "deciding doctrine". Theology is nothing more or less than "searching the scriptures" (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Jacob 7:23; Alma 14:1; Alma 17:2; Alma 33:2; 3 Nephi 10:14), and seeking to extract true doctrine from them. It is a "revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God - his relations to us - the dispensations of his providence - his will with respect to our actions - and his purposes with respect to our end" Those good folks who are organizing that seminar basically haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Edited March 8, 2012 by zerinus

[Grundelwalken]

Then you don't understand what theology is. Mormons generally don't. Joseph Smith defines theology (quoting from Buck's Theological Dictionary) as follows:

Question. What is theology?

Answer. It is that revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God - his relations to us - the dispensations of his providence - his will with respect to our actions - and his purposes with respect to our end (Buck's Theological Dictionary, page 582).

He is not inventing that definition himself. He is quoting a standard, non-LDS theological reference book. Here are some additional definitions of theology I found on the Internet (none of them as good as the one Joseph Smith quotes, but still good):

Here is a very nice, long definition of theology:

All of these are true and correct definitions, some better than others. All of these are from non-LDS sources. LDS, however, generally don't have a clues what theology is. Even their best scholars don't. In the quote I gave earlier, from one of the books by Salt Press, it said the following (highlights added):

This is an utterly false perception of what theology is. Theology does NOT "speculate," and it very much IS about "deciding doctrine". Theology is nothing more or less than "searching the scriptures" (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Jacob 7:23; Alma 14:1; Alma 17:2; Alma 33:2; 3 Nephi 10:14), and seeking to extract true doctrine from them. It is a "revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God - his relations to us - the dispensations of his providence - his will with respect to our actions - and his purposes with respect to our end" Those good folks who are organizing that seminar basically haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Well daggonit, I are a theologian then. Who knew a silly old dude like this one was such a highfalutin thing after all. Thanks for makin' muh day. MW

[zerinus]

Well daggonit, I are a theologian then. Who knew a silly old dude like this one was such a highfalutin thing after all. Thanks for makin' muh day. MW

Well, there are also good theologians and bad theologians. Being a theologian alone is nothing to boast about.

[Grundelwalken]

Well, there are also good theologians and bad theologians. Being a theologian alone is nothing to boast about.

Why do you have to go and ruin a perfectly good dream like that. Here i'm thinking I got me some new creedenshals and you just take em away. Don't be so mean!! ;-) MW

[mfbukowski]

I'm happy to announce the founding of a new press, and its publication of two new books about the Book of Mormon:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...-of-mormon.html

Where would be a good place to find a comprehensive list of sources for contemporary Mormon theology?