Calm Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 .but then I hate shopping (the one thing about being home bound, I don't miss) unless it's old book shops or craft/art shops.Another thing we think alike on..... 1
Stargazer Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 An audio version of the first article should be up today or tomorrow.There is a serious cost issue for audio, however, and we don't know how many would really use it, so we'll see if it is cost effective.If you put it on iTunes perhaps?
Bill Hamblin Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 If you put it on iTunes perhaps?That's the plan. Try to do an iTunes podcast of audio papers and other materials. But that may be down the road a bit. 1
why me Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) There is a new online academic journal dedicated to the study of LDS scripturehttp://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Dan Peterson is general editor.A while back I suggested that the journal should be an online journal. Glad that you guys followed my advice. Now it will be cheaper and you can begin to collect donations for the site and for the work. The goal should be: to defend the church against the antimormons and what they may say in their own writings, whether through books or articles. Edited August 8, 2012 by why me
why me Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 There is a new online academic journal dedicated to the study of LDS scripturehttp://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Dan Peterson is general editor.I don't see anything on the site that the journal will also deal in apologetics. Why?
Bill Hamblin Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 I don't see anything on the site that the journal will also deal in apologetics. Why?Well, we thought it was implied.
why me Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Well, we thought it was implied.I didn't see the implication at all. Of course I knew that the journal will deal with apologetics. But someone unfamiliar with you and the others would never guess that the journal will contain apologetics. It seems more academic in its study of the scriptures. Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere on the website.Hopefully, the journal will also have reviews of books published by publishers outside the church and by desseret. And will greg's piece on John be published online?
David Bokovoy Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Ask and ye shall receive. A professionally read MP3 audio version is now available of the article. As I understand it, this format will also be available for free from now on with each article.http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/thou-knowest-that-i-believe/#more-1
why me Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Ask and ye shall receive. A professionally read MP3 audio version is now available of the article. As I understand it, this format will also be available for free from now on with each article.http://www.mormonint...believe/#more-1This will be great for the blind. It shows inclusiveness.
zerinus Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) I don't see anything on the site that the journal will also deal in apologetics. Why?That is what has had me puzzled ever since I looked at the site. I thought all the fuss was about doing "apologetics," yet that objective appears nowhere visible on the site. On the other hand, they have declared their objective to be "scripture interpretation," which seems an over-ambitious objective to put it mildly. Whose scripture interpretation, and for whom, and by whom? Who says that scripture needs interpreting, or if it does that they have the authorisation or qualification to do it? One almost seems to require a special divine mandate to be offering "scripture interpretation," and they don't look the part. I am impressed with the effort they have made to put it all together, but I fear they may have started on a false note, which may prove to be its achilles heel.EDIT to add that there is a difference between writing an apologetics paper which tries to prove a point by reasoning out of the scriptures, and creating a journal whose objective is declared to be "scripture interpretation". They are not the same thing. Edited August 8, 2012 by zerinus
why me Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 EDIT to add that there is a difference between writing an apologetics paper which tries to prove a point by reasoning out of the scriptures, and creating a journal whose objective is declared to be "scripture interpretation". They are not the same thing.Having read David's paper I can see where apologetics comes in. In the paper David is showing a reasoned interpretation of Nephi with the bible. And this would show that what is in the book of mormon can be correlated with bible scripture study. This would entail that the book of mormon was not a book to be lightly written by Joseph or someone else. Someone needed to know the bible very well.I suppose that this can be interpreted as apologetics since it defends mormon scripture. But there is absolutely no mention that it is a journal that will deal with apologetics. I would assume that when reviews are written about critic interpretations of mormon history or doctrine, maybe more apologetics will be seen.
Bill Hamblin Posted August 8, 2012 Author Posted August 8, 2012 Having read David's paper I can see where apologetics comes in. In the paper David is showing a reasoned interpretation of Nephi with the bible. And this would show that what is in the book of mormon can be correlated with bible scripture study. This would entail that the book of mormon was not a book to be lightly written by Joseph or someone else. Someone needed to know the bible very well.I suppose that this can be interpreted as apologetics since it defends mormon scripture. But there is absolutely no mention that it is a journal that will deal with apologetics. I would assume that when reviews are written about critic interpretations of mormon history or doctrine, maybe more apologetics will be seen.We'll soon clarify it in the mission statement. 3
Bill Hamblin Posted August 8, 2012 Author Posted August 8, 2012 That is what has had me puzzled ever since I looked at the site. I thought all the fuss was about doing "apologetics," yet that objective appears nowhere visible on the site. On the other hand, they have declared their objective to be "scripture interpretation," which seems an over-ambitious objective to put it mildly. Whose scripture interpretation, and for whom, and by whom? Who says that scripture needs interpreting, or if it does that they have the authorisation or qualification to do it? One almost seems to require a special divine mandate to be offering "scripture interpretation," and they don't look the part. I am impressed with the effort they have made to put it all together, but I fear they may have started on a false note, which may prove to be its achilles heel.EDIT to add that there is a difference between writing an apologetics paper which tries to prove a point by reasoning out of the scriptures, and creating a journal whose objective is declared to be "scripture interpretation". They are not the same thing.The declared objective is not "scripture interpretation." Please read the mission statement. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/about/"Interpreter" in the title alludes to the BOM Interpreters.
zerinus Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 The declared objective is not "scripture interpretation." Please read the mission statement. http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/"Interpreter" in the title alludes to the BOM Interpreters.I thought I read somewhere the focus of the journal was scripture interpretation, not sure where; but still, the title of the journal is "A Journal of Mormon Scripture". That means that its focus in on the scriptures. That seems to me to be still a bit overambitious, as well as being somewhat removed from the "apologetics" goal, which is what everybody has been talking about.
zerinus Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Having read David's paper I can see where apologetics comes in. In the paper David is showing a reasoned interpretation of Nephi with the bible. And this would show that what is in the book of mormon can be correlated with bible scripture study. This would entail that the book of mormon was not a book to be lightly written by Joseph or someone else. Someone needed to know the bible very well.I suppose that this can be interpreted as apologetics since it defends mormon scripture. But there is absolutely no mention that it is a journal that will deal with apologetics. I would assume that when reviews are written about critic interpretations of mormon history or doctrine, maybe more apologetics will be seen.David's article is anything but apologetics; or if it is, it is a bad one. Apologetics is done by using sources that are acceptable orthodox (small 'o', including Mormon orthodox) sources. Quoting pagan Canaanite legends to support questionable or speculative doctrines not specifically taught in scripture is as far removed from doing apologetics as it could be. It is neither good scholarship nor apologetics.
Bill Hamblin Posted August 8, 2012 Author Posted August 8, 2012 David's article is anything but apologetics; or if it is, it is a bad one. Apologetics is done by using sources that are acceptable orthodox (small 'o', including Mormon orthodox) sources. Quoting pagan Canaanite legends to support questionable or speculative doctrines not specifically taught in scripture is as far removed from doing apologetics as it could be. It is neither good scholarship nor apologetics.Then, you don't have to read it.
zerinus Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Then, you don't have to read it.Of course I am going to read it. I am going to read it so I can tell you what I think of it. Can you give me a good reason why I shouldn't?
wenglund Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Ask and ye shall receive. A professionally read MP3 audio version is now available of the article. As I understand it, this format will also be available for free from now on with each article.http://www.mormonint...believe/#more-1I am listening to it now. Nicely done! And, thanks for the effort.However, for those of us using the Firefox browser with a Quicktime add-on, and who may wish to download the file to other listening devices in addition to hearing it streamed, it may be good for the techno-illiterate among us to provide notification somewhere that the mp3 file can be downloaded by saving the audio page, either that or provide a page where a button may be pushed to allow for downloading as well as streaming--perhaps even with a selection of other audio formates than mp3 to choose from (I can help convert files if needed).Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund
wenglund Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) The declared objective is not "scripture interpretation." Please read the mission statement. http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/"Interpreter" in the title alludes to the BOM Interpreters.Overly literalistic and demanding readers appear to be an occupational hazard for you. LOLThanks, -Wade Englund- Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund
Bill Hamblin Posted August 8, 2012 Author Posted August 8, 2012 Of course I am going to read it. I am going to read it so I can tell you what I think of it. Can you give me a good reason why I shouldn't?Do what you want. I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't believe it, and aren't interested in it, you don't have to read it.
why me Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) We'll soon clarify it in the mission statement.This will be a good idea. I think that David wrote a good piece and I would call it implied apologetics. Certainly, his piece shows that the book of mormon is not exactly a novel written from Joseph's imagination. And I do believe that the critics would be hard pressed to argue such after reading David's article.The mission statement will clarify for the reader just what exactly is the main mission of the Interpretator. At the moment one gets only one mission: to interpret mormon scripture. As you can see the reader just may be confused by the mission statement and the title of the journal. Edited August 8, 2012 by why me
why me Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 The declared objective is not "scripture interpretation." Please read the mission statement. http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/"Interpreter" in the title alludes to the BOM Interpreters.I think that you will need to rewrite the mission statement. What will you do when a critic writes a book that is critical of the lds church, either its doctrine, history, or intent? Reviews will be written that may have nothing to do with your mission statement. Something must be said about apologetics.
why me Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 David's article is anything but apologetics; or if it is, it is a bad one. Apologetics is done by using sources that are acceptable orthodox (small 'o', including Mormon orthodox) sources. Quoting pagan Canaanite legends to support questionable or speculative doctrines not specifically taught in scripture is as far removed from doing apologetics as it could be. It is neither good scholarship nor apologetics.I would call David's piece "Implied apologetics". It is apologetics because it shows that Nephi is a complicated section of the book of mormon and related to the bible. It shows that the book of mormon is actually a complicated piece of literature and not likely written by a novelist or a person's fantasy.
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Well, we thought it was implied.I also missed the implication. (that the site would contain apologetics). What about theology which is not particularly scriptural? Edited August 8, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 The declared objective is not "scripture interpretation." Please read the mission statement. http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/"Interpreter" in the title alludes to the BOM Interpreters.Yay! Ok- question answered.
Recommended Posts