"mormon Studies Review" And "journal Of Book Of Mormon Studies" Are Now Available Online

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey folks. The Maxwell Institute is offering digital-only subscriptions to all three of our periodicals (the Mormon Studies Review, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and Studies in the Bible and Antiquity) for ten bucks. Or you can subscribe to a print edition of one of them for $25 and get digital access to all three for free:

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/subscribe/

 

We just released the latest issues of MSR and JBMS. The Review has a great forum discussion about what it's like to teach about Mormonism in higher education today. The Journal has some great pieces on Alma 32, the intentionality of chiasmus, and the Book of Mormon as scripture in the nineteenth-century cultural context. Mark Wright introduces that volume here.

 

Hope you find something of value here. We're really proud (in the good sense) of these latest publications.  

[sethpayne]

Thanks LoaP!  Very excited to read the latest.

 

Keep up the good work.

[juliann]

I'll be subscribing!

[Ham Clam]

I think I'll be showing some articles from this issue of the Mormon Studies Review to some religion professors (from what I can tell from the sample articles). Excited to get a copy!

[mfbukowski]

Hey Blair- EXCELLENT! 

 

I'm in!

[telnetd]

Does this come with the vetting of the LDS Church leadership?

 

Gail

[Scott Lloyd]

As a non-subscriber, I've only now been able to access most of the content of last year's issue of Mormon Studies Review and, hence, have only now seen Daniel Peterson's article. He makes a persuasive case that apologetics is a useful and necessary part of scholarly dialogue and, hence, ought to be regarded as a branch of religious studies in general and Mormon Studies in particular.

Also, he quite rightly asserts that the term "Mormon studies" inherently implies a big-tent definition, and thus, those who approach the study of Mormonism from a faithful perspective are entitled to a place at the table and need not "bracket" their religious beliefs.

I'd provide a link, but it's too hard to do that with an iPod Touch. Maybe I'll come back later with a link.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Does this come with the vetting of the LDS Church leadership?

 

Gail

It is not an official publication so unlikely.

Assuming you mean General Authorities when you say "leadership".....

[cinepro]

No.  But even if it did, you would still have the option to agree or disagree with any of the articles that you wanted.  Even with "vetting" by "Church leadership", mistakes and errors can creep in, and we have to use our own personal judgment on what is correct and incorrect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As a non-subscriber, I've only now been able to access most of the content of last year's issue of Mormon Studies Review and, hence, have only now seen Daniel Peterson's article. He makes a persuasive case that apologetics is a useful and necessary part of scholarly dialogue and, hence, ought to be regarded as a branch of religious studies in general and Mormon Studies in particular.

Also, he quite rightly asserts that the term "Mormon studies" inherently implies a big-tent definition, and thus, those who approach the study of Mormonism from a faithful perspective are entitled to a place at the table and need not "bracket" their religious beliefs.

I'd provide a link, but it's too hard to do that with an iPod Touch. Maybe I'll come back later with a link.

 

Thanks, Scott. Yes, volume one is now available free of charge on the Institute's website, including a piece by Daniel Peterson. You can read it in HTML or PDF format. The site works really well with mobile devices and tablets. Since we've redesigned the website, it may be useful to familiarize folks here with the new format. Each journal volume's landing page looks like this: 

 

 

 

Features: 

1. Click the article's title to access it in HTML.

2. Click the PDF icon to download a PDF version of the article.

3. Click there for a PDF of the entire issue.

4. Click there to go to past issues of the periodical.

5. Click there to share, or print, or to open the periodical in HTML format in your browser.

The individual article pages look like this:

 

Page Features:

1. The buttons in order are: Share, Print, Return to the issue's home page, Change font size, and Open PDF.

2. These buttons open the current issue's Table of Contents and the arrows navigate back and forth between individual articles.

Ten bucks is a real steal for the digital subscription. You get access to all three Institute periodicals. 

[juliann]

It's good to see MI back in the journal business. Ten dollars makes for a good Christmas gift. I was particularly interested in.....

Vicarious Baptism for the Dead: 1 Corinthians 15:29 by Daniel B. Sharp.

 

Hans Conzelmann called 1 Corinthians 15:2¹ “one of the most hotly disputed passages in the epistle [of 1 Corinthians].”² This verse, which mentions being baptized on behalf of the dead, has puzzled biblical commentators for centuries. Conzelmann affirms that exegetes of this verse have “run riot” and notes that there are at least two hundred different interpretations of this passage.³ According to Gordon Fee, at least forty different explanations exist; he also maintains that “no one knows in fact what is going on.”⁴ Commenting on this passage, Michael F. Hull notes that “the vast majority of exegetes and commentators hold that 15:29 is a reference to some form of vicarious baptism.”⁵ In recent years, however, many scholars have attempted to understand 1 Corinthians 15:29 as something other than vicarious baptism, with Hull himself contributing the most thorough examination of the topic.⁶

 

 

I wasn't aware there was a resurgence of objections to what I think is the rather obvious conclusion...they were doing something related to baptism for the dead as we know it.  So this is an important contribution to apologetics. Sharp concludes,

 

An interpretation of vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 assumes the following historical context and logic: within Corinth some of the Corinthian saints were being baptized on behalf of dead people who had not accepted Christ in their lifetime. This was done because they understood that the dead could respond to Christ.¹¹⁴ They also understood that baptism was the ritual that sealed one as Christ’s at the resurrection—moving a person from the resurrection of the unjust to the resurrection of the just.¹¹⁵ This practice is logical only if all people are resurrected and if there is a difference in the type of resurrection people will receive. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, argues for the reality of the bodily resurrection. He begins by providing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3–10) and then contends that those who have died in Christ will be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:18–20). He continues by claiming that as in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive. This is the only way that death can be destroyed and that Christ will become victor over all (1 Corinthians 15:21–27). Building on this belief in a universal resurrection and the practice that grows from it—vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead—Paul shows further evidence in support of the universal resurrection. How foolish the practice would be if all were not resurrected. He continues with that line of reasoning to show how foolish his own sacrifices would be if there was no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:30–34). Paul’s argument then transitions into the nature of resurrected bodies (1 Corinthians 15:35–58).

 

He is responding to three scholars, William Walker who accepts a vicarious baptism reading... but thinks it is only an interpolation of non-Pauline passage. Joel White who thinks it doesn't mean vicarious baptism...and James Patrick who thinks the dead being referred to are dead Christians. These positions effectively skirt vicarious baptism either directly or indirectly.

 

What I really liked was how accessibly it was written. Sharp breaks down the arguments into almost bite sized propositions so the logic behind each is easily understood. For example, his conclusion....

 

 

 

Having spent much time examining this issue, I have determined that the majority of modern exegetes who reject a reading of vicarious baptism in 1 Corinthians 15:29 do so for the following reasons:

 

First, they accept the argument of Raeder and Jeremias that “the dead” in 1 Corinthians 15:29a refers to dead Christians. I have argued that a closer reading of 1 Corinthians 15 shows that Paul is arguing for a universal resurrection and that Jeremias and Raeder are mistaken.

 

Second, many reject this reading because they claim a lack of evidence that such a practice ever existed. Borrowing on the work of Trumbower, Paulsen, and others, I have shown that several early Christian groups practiced baptism for the dead and that Jewish and pagan groups performed comparable ordinances on behalf of the dead within their tradition.

 

Third, and probably most important—although often unstated—most modern exegetes who deny that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is about vicarious baptism do so because they assume that the practice contradicts the theology of Paul.

 

One quibble... even with my background (which is dated,) I felt like I was stepping into the middle of something. I don't know who any of these scholars are and Sharp didn't tell me why they matter.  I'm always careful to not mix and match conservative and liberal scholarship because they usually don't share the same beginning assumptions. For example, Hull, who is referred to in the first quote seems to be on the conservative side given some of the comments about him.  So I would like to see what schools of thought these scholars represent as well as what opinions they hold that represent those schools. As Mormons, we tend to do some cross-over so both are important to know about.

 

At any rate, it is encouraging to see that baptism for the dead, a fundamental doctrine,  is holding strong.

[Calm]

Thanks, Scott. Yes, volume one is now available free of charge on the Institute's website, including a piece by Daniel Peterson. You can read it in HTML or PDF format. The site works really well with mobile devices and tablets. Since we've redesigned the website, it may be useful to familiarize folks here with the new format. Each journal volume's landing page looks like this: 

 

 

 

Features: 

1. Click the article's title to access it in HTML.

2. Click the PDF icon to download a PDF version of the article.

3. Click there for a PDF of the entire issue.

4. Click there to go to past issues of the periodical.

5. Click there to share, or print, or to open the periodical in HTML format in your browser.

The individual article pages look like this:

 

Page Features:

1. The buttons in order are: Share, Print, Return to the issue's home page, Change font size, and Open PDF.

2. These buttons open the current issue's Table of Contents and the arrows navigate back and forth between individual articles.

Ten bucks is a real steal for the digital subscription. You get access to all three Institute periodicals.

Thanks for the info. I need reading material right now as I think I have a few more days of this nasty flu to wait out (remarkably how painless being sick is nowadays with IPads and laptops to keep company with, gone is the motivation to get better just to avoid boredom because nothing was on besides soaps and game shows and I had read every book in the house at least once, probably three times if fiction).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the info. I need reading material right now as I think I have a few more days of this nasty flu to wait out (remarkably how painless being sick is nowadays with IPads and laptops to keep company with, gone is the motivation to get better just to avoid boredom because nothing was on besides soaps and game shows and I had read every book in the house at least once, probably three times if fiction).

Perfect. Let me know how it goes. And get well! 

[Calm]

Glad you posted...I completely phased out about this....bookmarking now for reading list.

No guarantees on actually following through though, life keeps messing up my plans lately...my fulfillment rate on commitments is currently abysmally low.

Edited December 17, 2014 by calmoriah