New Journal On Mormon Scripture

[USU78]

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 have the time don't know what they are talking about!

There's a big ol' gap here between holding that agreed-to scriptures are as close to "original" or "primary" sources of TRVTH about G-d and saying that scriptures are THE ORIGINAL AND PRIMARY AND ONLY source. The latter is bibliolotry and against the First and Second Commandments. It is G-d Himself Whom we worship and to Whom we look for TRVTH about Him.

If you're a Latter-Day Saint, that means revelation from G-d, both personal and general. General revelations, meant for the entire Church and/or all mankind, is necessarily second-hand revelation. First-hand revelation is the only one that matters much, however, since we cannot know that second-hand revelation is truly TRVTH unless it is revealed directly to us by G-d.

zerinus seems to have missed all that stuff in Mormon scriptures, Mormon conference talks and Mormon lesson manuals . . . hell, and even Mormon hymns outlining how things work.

Arrogantly dismissing folks who think and write and talk about matters of particular interest for Mormons is shockingly parochial and hurts the dismisser far more than the dismissee.

[mfbukowski]

There's a big ol' gap here between holding that agreed-to scriptures are as close to "original" or "primary" sources of TRVTH about G-d and saying that scriptures are THE ORIGINAL AND PRIMARY AND ONLY source. The latter is bibliolotry and against the First and Second Commandments. It is G-d Himself Whom we worship and to Whom we look for TRVTH about Him.

If you're a Latter-Day Saint, that means revelation from G-d, both personal and general. General revelations, meant for the entire Church and/or all mankind, is necessarily second-hand revelation. First-hand revelation is the only one that matters much, however, since we cannot know that second-hand revelation is truly TRVTH unless it is revealed directly to us by G-d.

zerinus seems to have missed all that stuff in Mormon scriptures, Mormon conference talks and Mormon lesson manuals . . . hell, and even Mormon hymns outlining how things work.

Arrogantly dismissing folks who think and write and talk about matters of particular interest for Mormons is shockingly parochial and hurts the dismisser far more than the dismissee.

Sigh. You are right of course and I love the way you spell "TRVTH". I gotta steal that one!

But I kind of wish I could understand things as simply black-and-white as some others hereabouts.

But that only lasts a minute or two.

[zerinus]

There's a big ol' gap here between holding that agreed-to scriptures are as close to "original" or "primary" sources of TRVTH about G-d and saying that scriptures are THE ORIGINAL AND PRIMARY AND ONLY source. The latter is bibliolotry and against the First and Second Commandments. It is G-d Himself Whom we worship and to Whom we look for TRVTH about Him.

If you're a Latter-Day Saint, that means revelation from G-d, both personal and general. General revelations, meant for the entire Church and/or all mankind, is necessarily second-hand revelation. First-hand revelation is the only one that matters much, however, since we cannot know that second-hand revelation is truly TRVTH unless it is revealed directly to us by G-d.

zerinus seems to have missed all that stuff in Mormon scriptures, Mormon conference talks and Mormon lesson manuals . . . hell, and even Mormon hymns outlining how things work.

Arrogantly dismissing folks who think and write and talk about matters of particular interest for Mormons is shockingly parochial and hurts the dismisser far more than the dismissee.

This is how everybody else in the rest of the world (apart from you) understands theology:

From 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.

From Collins English Dictionary:

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 feminist theology

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

From American Heritage Dictionary:

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

2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

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

2

a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>

b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>

3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

From answers.com:

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

2 A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

3 A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

From gotquestions.org:

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).

From the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith (originally called Lectures on Theology):

What is theology?

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).

Now if you want to invent your own definition theology which is different from what everybody else in the rest of the world understands, I suppose you can; but don't expect anybody else to take you seriously.

Edited August 13, 2012 by zerinus

[Bill Hamblin]

I think discussions of theology and other things are derailing this thread. Please stick to discussion of the new journal Interpreter here, and start other threads for other discussions.

[USU78]

I think discussions of theology and other things are derailing this thread. Please stick to discussion of the new journal Interpreter here, and start other threads for other discussions.

[mfbukowski]

This is how everybody else in the world (apart from you) understands theology:

From 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.

From Collins English Dictionary:

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 feminist theology

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

From American Heritage Dictionary:

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

2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

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

2

a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>

b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>

3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

From answers.com:

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

2 A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

3 A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

From gotquestions.org:

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).

From the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith (originally called Lectures on Theology):

What is theology?

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).

Now if you want to invent your own definition theology which is different from what everybody else in the rest of the world understands, I suppose you can; but don't expect anybody else to take you seriously.

The only problem is that NONE of your definitions even include the word "scripture".

[mfbukowski]

I think discussions of theology and other things are derailing this thread. Please stick to discussion of the new journal Interpreter here, and start other threads for other discussions.

Uh oh- sorry- I posted before I saw this post. I shall cease and desist immediately.

[Bill Hamblin]

[media=]

That is, and always should be, the proper response!

[zerinus]

The only problem is that NONE of your definitions even include the word "scripture".

The only good answer to that statement is a rude one, so I will refrain from answering.

[zerinus]

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?

That is a valid point, and good observation. Technically speaking this project is very well executed. Those responsible for the technological execution of the journal online, and the various methods of its distribution, deserve high praise for the work they have accomplished. But as for the aims, objectives, and purpose of the journal, and its content, it is proving to be woefully inadequate. First of all they appear to be in a quandary as to what they really want to do with this thing. It appears that the penny has finally dropped that what they have been calling "apologetics" all along isn't really apologetics after all; so they are going to have to call it something else; but they can't figure out what! Whichever way they try to cut it, it doesn't seem to work! But more importantly, the kind of content that they have been publishing (and looks like they will be publishing) is neither good scholarship, nor real apologetics, nor even decent scripture interpretation; and to be frank it will be of little or no value to Mormonism, Mormons, or non-Mormons alike. It is going to be a waste of the technological excellence which has accompanied it. The best suggestion I can think of to turn it around would be to change its name to The Journal of Mormon Studies, and choose a mission statement that will be appropriate to it, and invite contributions from a wide range of sources including non-Mormons (and even from Mormon critics, provided that their criticisms are courteous and respectful to the Church). It necessitates some "thinking out of the box," and scrapping the kind of trash that has been published in there already. That is the only solution I can think of for rescuing the project from being doomed to oblivion.

[Pahoran]

That is a valid point, and good observation. Technically speaking this project is very well executed. Those responsible for the technological execution of the journal online, and the various methods of its distribution, deserve high praise for the work they have accomplished. But as for the aims, objectives, and purpose of the journal, and its content, it is proving to be woefully inadequate. First of all they appear to be in a quandary as to what they really want to do with this thing. It appears that the penny has finally dropped that what they have been calling "apologetics" all along isn't really apologetics after all; so they are going to have to call it something else; but they can't figure out what! Whichever way they try to cut it, it doesn't seem to work! But more importantly, the kind of content that they have been publishing (and looks like they will be publishing) is neither good scholarship, nor real apologetics, nor even decent scripture interpretation; and to be frank it will be of little or no value to Mormonism, Mormons, or non-Mormons alike. It is going to be a waste of the technological excellence which has accompanied it. The best suggestion I can think of to turn it around would be to change its name to The Journal of Mormon Studies, and choose a mission statement that will be appropriate to it, and invite contributions from a wide range of sources including non-Mormons (and even from Mormon critics, provided that their criticisms are courteous and respectful to the Church).

In other words, to abandon the project and do something else.

It necessitates some "thinking out of the box," and scrapping the kind of trash that has been published in there already. That is the only solution I can think of for rescuing the project from being doomed to oblivion.

Perhaps you missed this part:

Interpreter will also publish articles advocating the authenticity and historicity of LDS scripture and the Restoration, along with scholarly responses to critics of the LDS faith.

If that isn't apologetics, I don't know what is.

I doubt that this project is "doomed to oblivion." Even among those who share your degree of intellectual/religious/theological snobbery, I doubt there are many who share the standards by which you choose to disdain everything not-Zerinus, which standards I confess are entirely opaque to me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

In other words, to abandon the project and do something else.

That is right. Why settle for something worse, when you can do something better.

Perhaps you missed this part:

If that isn't apologetics, I don't know what is.

They added that when other people pointed out that something didn't quite fit; and it still doesn't fit. Whichever way they cut that cloth, it doesn't seem to work, because they started on the wrong note from the start.

I doubt that this project is "doomed to oblivion."

I reckon it lacks the vision to go forward, unless it morphs into something else. It is stuck in the past. It appears to lack the vision to see that things have changed, and what was done in the past no longer meets the requirements of the future. That kind of so called "apologetics" work (misnamed) has had its day (if it ever was useful to anybody). It is time to move forward to a different level. Failure to do so would spell failure of the project.

Even among those who share your degree of intellectual/religious/theological snobbery, I doubt there are many who share the standards by which you choose to disdain everything not-Zerinus, which standards I confess are entirely opaque to me.

Bradford and I are in it together. He has paid me a lot of money to say all of this!

[Bill Hamblin]

That is a valid point, and good observation. Technically speaking this project is very well executed. Those responsible for the technological execution of the journal online, and the various methods of its distribution, deserve high praise for the work they have accomplished. But as for the aims, objectives, and purpose of the journal, and its content, it is proving to be woefully inadequate. First of all they appear to be in a quandary as to what they really want to do with this thing. It appears that the penny has finally dropped that what they have been calling "apologetics" all along isn't really apologetics after all; so they are going to have to call it something else; but they can't figure out what! Whichever way they try to cut it, it doesn't seem to work! But more importantly, the kind of content that they have been publishing (and looks like they will be publishing) is neither good scholarship, nor real apologetics, nor even decent scripture interpretation; and to be frank it will be of little or no value to Mormonism, Mormons, or non-Mormons alike. It is going to be a waste of the technological excellence which has accompanied it. The best suggestion I can think of to turn it around would be to change its name to The Journal of Mormon Studies, and choose a mission statement that will be appropriate to it, and invite contributions from a wide range of sources including non-Mormons (and even from Mormon critics, provided that their criticisms are courteous and respectful to the Church). It necessitates some "thinking out of the box," and scrapping the kind of trash that has been published in there already. That is the only solution I can think of for rescuing the project from being doomed to oblivion.

The journal is not intended to do only apologetics.

[zerinus]

The journal is not intended to do only apologetics.

I didn't say it is. It is intended to publish the kind of material that used to be called apologetics, but never was, like the two articles that have already been published.

[Bill Hamblin]

I didn't say it is. It is intended to publish the kind of material that used to be called apologetics, but never was, like the two articles that have already been published.

The two articles already published aren't necessarily apologetic, are they? Apologetics will be forthcoming. Be patient. Interpreter has only existed for two weeks.

[zerinus]

The two articles already published aren't necessarily apologetic, are they? Apologetics will be forthcoming. Be patient. Interpreter has only existed for two weeks.

You are not getting it.

[USU78]

You are not getting it.

Perhaps there's nothing to get.

[zerinus]

Perhaps there's nothing to get.

You mean like the meaning of theology which you never got.

[Pahoran]

I reckon it lacks the vision to go forward, unless it morphs into something else. It is stuck in the past. It appears to lack the vision to see that things have changed, and what was done in the past no longer meets the requirements of the future. That kind of so called "apologetics" work (misnamed) has had its day (if it ever was useful to anybody). It is time to move forward to a different level. Failure to do so would spell failure of the project.

So, according to you, no matter how popular the journal is, no matter how well received its articles, no matter how effectively anti-Mormon claims are answered, no matter what new insights into LDS scriptures are brought forth -- IOW, no matter how successful the project is objectively -- it will still be a "failure" to you if it doesn't conform itself to your way of thinking.

Wow. Just, wow.

And exactly how was the past apologetics "misnamed?" By what private (if not downright solipsistic) definition of "apologetics" are you operating?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You mean like the meaning of theology which you never got.

Please note, before you indulge your taste for cheap shots, that you did not make your case on that point. Scripture is not inherent to the nature or meaning of theology, which is in fact a branch of philosophy. Rather, scripture (meaning the Bible) is merely a tool -- and not the only one -- that Christian theologians use.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

No theology discussions here. Take it to another thread please.

[zerinus]

So, according to you, no matter how popular the journal is, no matter how well received its articles, no matter how effectively anti-Mormon claims are answered, no matter what new insights into LDS scriptures are brought forth -- IOW, no matter how successful the project is objectively -- it will still be a "failure" to you if it doesn't conform itself to your way of thinking.

Wow. Just, wow.

Not so. Your penchant for distorting and misrepresenting my views are duly noted. My point is that it will not accomplish those aims because it is fundamentally a flawed project, unless it changes into something else.

And exactly how was the past apologetics "misnamed?" By what private (if not downright solipsistic) definition of "apologetics" are you operating?

If you had bothered to read my previous posts carefully enough, you wouldn't have needed to as that question.

[Pahoran]

No theology discussions here. Take it to another thread please.

My humble apologies, O great one. Having seen your previous admonition on this point I have no excuse to offer, except:

He did it first!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Not so. Your penchant for distorting and misrepresenting my views are duly noted. My point is that it will not accomplish those aims because it is fundamentally a flawed project, unless it changes into something else.

I guess time will tell then, won't it?

In any case, as Bill said, you don't need to lower yourself to reading anything published therein if it's just too far beneath you.

If you had bothered to read my previous posts carefully enough, you wouldn't have needed to as that question.

Oh, so you're referring to this:

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.

An utterly arbitrary criterion that seems original to you.

IOW, a private (if not downright solipsistic) definition of "apologetics."

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

No quibbling about the meaning of apologetics here either! You guys have to take it out in the alley behind the bar!