New Journal On Mormon Scripture

[David Bokovoy]

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.

To clarify, it was a conscious decision on the part of the creators of the journal to adopt the name Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, as opposed to "The Interpreter," since the journal will present interpretations of Mormon scripture, not "the" interpretation of Mormon scripture in a definitive sense. Moreover, as I specified in footnote 20 of my specific essay,

"I am presenting an argument for the way an Israelite familiar with ancient religious experiences and scribal techniques might have interpreted these Book of Mormon texts, rather than an analysis of original authorial intent."

This type of reading, of course, demands the use of Near Eastern sources, including "Canaanite legends."

[zerinus]

What about theology which is not particularly scriptural?

Scripture is the very foundation on which all Christian theology is built.

[USU78]

Scripture is the very foundation on which all Christian theology is built.

Say rather that [lower-case] scripture is the imperfect and all-too-human source of retained communications from G-d to man, which communications are the foundation upon which all Christianity is built.

We don't hold with sola-fid and sola-scrip notions around here.

[mfbukowski]

Say rather that [lower-case] scripture is the imperfect and all-too-human source of retained communications from G-d to man, which communications are the foundation upon which all Christianity is built.

We don't hold with sola-fid and sola-scrip notions around here.

Very well said. I didn't feel like dealing with it, and you said it better than I would have.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Who laid this definition down, and by what authority? What reason would I or anybody else have to accept it?

[why me]

Who laid this definition down, and by what authority? What reason would I or anybody else have to accept it?

This is a good point. Should apologetics at all be in the mission statement or should it only be implied? A mission statement gives direction to an organization, business or institution. What direction can we gleam from the Interpretators mission statement that gives a blueprint or road map for the journal?

[Bill Hamblin]

We now have a revised mission statement up.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/about/

[Scott Lloyd]

We now have a revised mission statement up.

http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/

Much improved.

[Bill Hamblin]

Audio Podcasts of Articles from Interpreter are now available by subscription on iTunes.

https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/audio-podcasts-of-interpreter/

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm very excited about this new venture, and by the rapid progress that it's making.

And there's much more to come.

[why me]

We now have a revised mission statement up.

http://www.mormonint...eter.com/about/

I think that you should get rid of the "About" on the home page and change it to Mission Statement. It sounds more professional. "About" just doesn't make any sense in the context the homepage is implying. The mission statement is much improved and gives the reader an understanding that the journal will also deal with apologetics.

[why me]

I'm very excited about this new venture, and by the rapid progress that it's making.

And there's much more to come.

So far the articles are very professional. I think that the Interpretator is already giving the Maxwell Institute a run for its money. I think that as word gets out, donations will be coming in, especially if the editorial board begins a fundraiser for the work. But first, there needs to be more readers and it has to be more well known.

[wenglund]

I think that you should get rid of the "About" on the home page and change it to Mission Statement. It sounds more professional. "About" just doesn't make any sense in the context the homepage is implying. The mission statement is much improved and gives the reader an understanding that the journal will also deal with apologetics.

NOt that your suggestion isn't helpful, but the "About" tab. like the "About Us" tab, is quite pervasive on the Internet.

When designing a web page there is always the debate between providing ease of navigation (like using common formating) and accommodating the technologically challenged/cyber newbies. Deciding how to strike the right balance is an art, and vulnerable to endless and oft fruitless nit-picking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

NOt that your suggestion isn't helpful, but the "About" tab. like the "About Us" tab, is quite pervasive on the Internet.

When designing a web page there is always the debate between providing ease of navigation (like using common formating) and accommodating the technologically challenged/cyber newbies. Deciding how to strike the right balance is an art, and vulnerable to endless and oft fruitless nit-picking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But on the other hand, it is an academic journal and Mission Statement sounds more academic and professional.

I just noticed that the change was made to Mission Statement. It looks much better and more professional. But it would have been nice to have gotten a couple of reputation points for the idea....

Edited August 10, 2012 by why me

[mrmandias]

I think that you should get rid of the "About" on the home page and change it to Mission Statement. It sounds more professional. "About" just doesn't make any sense in the context the homepage is implying. The mission statement is much improved and gives the reader an understanding that the journal will also deal with apologetics.

I agree on all counts.

"About" is characteristic of web pages, whereas Mission Statements are characteristic of journals and institutions. I see the Mormon Interpreter as a journal and an institution that happens to have a web page, not just a web page. My two cents.

Edit: the change has already been made. So take this comment as an attaboy.

My only remaining suggestion would be to not use the word 'educational' in the first paragraph. That's a worthy purpose, but in many contexts 'educational' means 'dumbed down' or even 'boring'

Edited August 10, 2012 by mrmandias

[zerinus]

Scripture is the very foundation on which all Christian theology is built.

Say rather that [lower-case] scripture is the imperfect and all-too-human source of retained communications from G-d to man, which communications are the foundation upon which all Christianity is built.

We don't hold with sola-fid and sola-scrip notions around here.

Not so. I am talking about theology as defined and understood by those who actually do theology. Mormons (or many of them) often openly despise theology, declare that Mormons aren't theologians and does not do theology. So they have forfeited the right to define theology, or declare what it is. If you talk to people who actually do theology, and take pride in fact, they would tell you that Christian theology is foundationally based on scripture. They are the ones who know, because that is what they do.

Actually it is not strictly true that Mormons don't do theology. They do; they just make bad theologians. Nobody can talk about, discuss, teach, or write about gospel doctrine without doing theology.

Edited August 13, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

Actually it is not strictly true that Mormons don't do theology. They do; they just make bad theologians. Nobody can talk about, discuss, teach, or write about Christian doctrine without doing theology.

Based on this then, we should all abandon this board because we are doing theology here but doing it poorly.

Actually I kind of agree with that.

[zerinus]

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.

Who laid this definition down, and by what authority? What reason would I or anybody else have to accept it?

Thank you Dan, and sorry for the delay in replying. That depends on how you want to define apologetics. In the past (at least) you have tended to define apologetics rather broadly, to include articles of the type such as the two recent articles published in your new Journal, the Interpreter. I think that defining apologetics as broadly as that is a bit of a misnomer, because they are not really apologetics work in the proper sense of the term. I have expressed my views of what apologetics is and how it should be defined in the following two posts:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209155263

http://www.mormondia...entry1209159118

Defined in that narrower sense of the term, apologetics has to be orthodox. Let me try to illustrate with an example. One of the characteristic features of Mormonism is belief in the deification of man, and (consequently) the plurality of gods. Now there are many Mormon critics (typically of the Evangelical variety) who object to this, and cite a number of biblical passages which focus on the unity of God (and pronouncements against idolatry) to claim that this doctrine of Mormonism amounts to Idolatry, and therefore it is unbiblical and unchristian. The Answer that Mormons typically give to this (quite rightly) is to point to numerous orthodox Christian teachers of the early Christian era who not only taught this doctrine, but actually supported it from the Bible, such as with references to the writings of Peter, or the Gospels, or the Psalms. Now there have also been scholars in the Christian world who have argued that the development of the doctrine of deification in early Christianity was actually a sop given by early Christian thinkers to paganism of the time in order to appease the Greco Roman world to avoid persecution; and giving it biblical support was just an excuse. Now if Mormon apologists started to cite those sources approvingly and incorporate them into their "apologetics" work, it would stop being apologetic and become counter-apologetic, because it could no longer be "apologetic" of Mormon doctrine, as far as the said critics are concerned. That is the kind of thing I have in mind.

Now as far as just scholarship is concerned, I do not consider either of the two articles published in the Interpreter to be good scholarship, because they are highly speculative, and in fact fall into the realm of scripture interpretation rather than scholarship--except that they are extremely bad interpretations. There is absolutely no scriptural justification for interpreting Nephi's communion with God and the Holy Ghost in the mountain with the much hyped "council of the gods;" and the idea of the Nephite apostasies having been caused by the melding of the Nephite and indigenous cultures (unheard of in the Book of Mormon) is utter nonsense. No such thing exists or can be shown from the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, there is stronger evidence in the Book of Mormon against that idea than in support of it.

Edited August 13, 2012 by zerinus

[volgadon]

Based on this then, we should all abandon this board because we are doing theology here but doing it poorly.

Actually I kind of agree with that.

All but Zerinus.

[mfbukowski]

All but Zerinus.

Oh- ok - I get it now, thanks!

[USU78]

Based on this then, we should all abandon this board because we are doing theology here but doing it poorly.

Actually I kind of agree with that.

Actually, the whole post was a non-sequitur . . . I was referring to the fact that we Christians are not all defined by the views of the relative few who are sola-fid and sola-scriptura types, as zerinus implicitly at first and now more expressly has opined.

The protestants are a minority of Christians, and the evangelical protestants a tiny minority of protestants.

They're just really loud.

[volgadon]

Actually, the whole post was a non-sequitur . . . I was referring to the fact that we Christians are not all defined by the views of the relative few who are sola-fid and sola-scriptura types, as zerinus implicitly at first and now more expressly has opined.

The protestants are a minority of Christians, and the evangelical protestants a tiny minority of protestants.

They're just really loud.

I often wonder what they would make of a standard Russian Orthodox work like Zakon Bozhiy.

[Calm]

"Law of God for Family and School"?

[volgadon]

"Law of God for Family and School"?

Yes, that is the one. Sort of an Orthodox "Gospel Doctrines," which was originally written for children and their mothers in the Russian diaspora, but has since become in Russia the foremost introduction to the Orthodox way of life. For many people, it is the only book on Orthodoxy they'll read.

[zerinus]

Actually, the whole post was a non-sequitur . . . I was referring to the fact that we Christians are not all defined by the views of the relative few who are sola-fid and sola-scriptura types, as zerinus implicitly at first and now more expressly has opined.

The protestants are a minority of Christians, and the evangelical protestants a tiny minority of protestants.

They're just really loud.

Theology in its essence means the study of God. And as far as I know, by general agreement of all those who have attempted such a study, the only legitimate source of information about God is in what He has told us about Himself, which is in scripture. Now that scripture may be different depending on what your religion is. If you are a traditional Christian, the Bible would be the legitimate source of that information. If you are a Mormon, that source will include Mormon scripture in addition to the Bible. If you are a Muslim, that source will include the Koran. If you are a Jew, that source will be primarily the Old Testament. These are the primary sources in which it is believed (by their respective adherents) God has revealed information about Himself. So theology is essentially a study of God through the revelations that He has given to us about Himself, which is what is normally called scripture. There is no other source (except in a very limited sense) in which that information can be found, to facilitate such a study. That is the common denominator which everybody agrees upon, regardless of what religion belonging to (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, whatever), that theology is a study of God, based on what He has revealed to us about Himself, in whatever scripture or revelation that you happen to believe in--with the possible exception of a bunch of ignominious Mormon "scholars" who half the time don't know what they are talking about!

Edited August 13, 2012 by zerinus