New Article On Interpreter

[zerinus]

As I stated, the definition of mansion that I gave was from the 1828 edition of Websters dictionary. The first definition. I used this dictionary as it is closer in time to the translation of the KJV. If we could find a definition even closer I would accept that.

And I explained to you why there cannot be "many mansions" in the temple, whichever way you want to define the word mansion. Whether you define it as a three bedroom flat or a 40 bedroom house, it doesn't make sense.

Revelation 21:22 reads, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (emphasis mine)

In the book of Revelation there are plenty of references to a temple in heaven:

Revelation 7:

15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Revelation 11:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Revelation 14:

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

Revelation 15:

5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened

6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

Revelation 16:

1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

[Bill Hamblin]

The next article is up:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

[blackstrap]

As an aside to the house/mansions topic, I note that some NDE experiencers have spoken of entering a normal sized building and found that inside the building was enormous.So I guess a house could hold many mansions!

[mfbukowski]

The next article is up:

http://www.mormonint...dr-michael-coe/

Yeah but other than those few points, .....

[blackstrap]

Excellent letter from J Sorensen. Someone should be much more careful in interviews!

[zerinus]

As a side note, yesterday I visited one of (only) two LDS book stores in the UK, situated near the London Temple (the other one being near the Preston temple, run by the same family). The store owner told me that they were doing a good sale of the Joseph Smith Papers volumes. He said that one young lady came and bought several of them because she was studying it at the University. He didn't know what university that was. So it does indeed appear that the subject of Mormonism is becoming more and more a subject of academic interest in colleges and universities. UK universities are very secular. Twenty years ago I would not have imagined that the subject of Mormonism should become a subject of academic interest in a UK university. And LDS scholars have two choices: They can either watch from the sidelines, and let non-LDS scholars call all the shots; or else they can make a useful contribution by playing by the rules. Playing by the rules means no testimony bearing, or relying on spiritual experience, or doing "apologetics" etc. That is the nature of academics.

[Calm]

. Playing by the rules means.....or doing "apologetics" etc. That is the nature of academics.

Are you saying that they are not allowed to do any apologetics, even outside their "academic" work to be taken seriously?

[ANACO]

The next article is up:

http://www.mormonint...dr-michael-coe/

Not impressed. Shall we re-hash?

1. "it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya," http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738

2. "The internal evidence from the Book of Mormon seems to be definitive that the Nephites had nothing to do with Izapa, and it is doubtful that the Lamanites did either." http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=1&id=181

3. "Although the Nephites cannot be equated with the Maya, Maya culture was already widespread in Mesoamerica in the Preclassic period (400 BC–AD 250) and appears to have exerted great influence on surrounding cultures." http://www.mormonint...phite-apostasy/

4. "Enthusiastic comments published at Nauvoo showed that the Church's leaders, including Joseph Smith, were immensely stimulated by the new information. Within a few weeks of the first notice, they announced they had just discovered, by reading Stephens's book, that the Nephites' prime homeland must have been in Central [America], http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196 (A book about the Maya)

5. "There is too much gratuitous “Mayanization” going on throughout this entire discussion. The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part." http://www.mormonint...dr-michael-coe/

A search at NAMI (F.A.R.M.S.) for the word Maya returns 31 pages of 10 articles each mentioning the word "Maya" http://maxwellinstit...=Maya&search=Go

'The Intereprator' is prolonging the tradition of equating the Nephites with the Maya, while not equating the Nephites with the Maya.

"There's too much Mayanization going on here!" Ha ha ha!

Agreeing with Michael Coe while disagreeing with him controls both sides of the debate!

So come on. Beat me up:

I can take it.

Respectfully, Anaco.

[Bill Hamblin]

If the Nephites were the Maya, it would mean that all Maya cities, art, religious belief, etc. were Nephite. No one has ever claimed this.

Try to think about it as a Venn diagram. Nephites are one circle, Maya are another circle. They overlap, but they are not the same circles.

[zerinus]

Are you saying that they are not allowed to do any apologetics, even outside their "academic" work to be taken seriously?

I am agreeing with Bradford, that articles of the type that have been published by NAMI in the past under the guise of so called "apologetics" (or of the kind that are currently being published by the Interpreter) will not meet the needs of the academic world of today, nor be taken seriously enough to be published by one of their journals. Studying Mormonism as an academic subject is at odds with a paper written with the bias of attempting to establish the "truth" of Mormonism.

This is a different issue from the observation that a lot of those articles are highly speculative and poorly written, and do not really establish the truth of anything anyway.

Edited September 2, 2012 by zerinus

[Pahoran]

I am agreeing with Bradford, that articles of the type that have been published by NAMI in the past under the guise of so called "apologetics" (or of the kind that are currently being published by the Interpreter) will not meet the needs of the academic world of today, nor be taken seriously enough to be published by one of their journals. Studying Mormonism as an academic subject is at odds with a paper written with the bias of attempting to establish the "truth" of Mormonism.

And you are avoiding the question before you. Is it your contention that those who wish to "play by the [non-Mormon] rules" in telling what is, after all, our story and not theirs, must always play by those rules and never do what everyone in the entire English-speaking world except yourself recognises as "apologetics?"

This is a different issue from the observation that a lot of those articles are highly speculative and poorly written, and do not really establish the truth of anything anyway.

Just so you know, "observation" is not an accepted spelling for "snobbish and dismissive opinion."

Regards,

Pahoran