Historian of Religion, Science, and Biblical Interpretation
We recently put forth an open call for abstracts for a special issue of BYU Studies dedicated to biological evolution, LDS faith, and practice. I am the guest editor overseeing the non-scientific submissions and as such, would like to emphasize a few things from the call that seem to be getting overlooked. Update: Please note, we have extended the abstract submission deadline from February 1 to March 1. Continue reading
I had a conversation1which was eventually deleted by an administrator in a public Facebook group about the “printing error” in the 2020 Book of Mormon manual. I raised some substantial concerns, filled out with a number of links to my own research and posts about cursing in scripture (e.g. here and in my posts on 2 Nephi 1-5, here and here). Two S&I/COB2Seminaries & Institutes; Church Office Building employees responded to me by bearing fervent testimony of the Curriculum and Correlation processes and berating anyone who dared hold any other opinion.
These testimonies constituted de facto witnessing of inerrancy (not the first I’ve seen) and also violated Elder Ballard’s directive specifically to S&I teachers;
“Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue.”
I even called them out on avoiding the central issues, which received no response. Continue reading
First, I’ll be speaking in Provo April 3, along with Terryl and Fiona Givens, Steven Harper, and likely some others yet to be announced. It’s free to attend, but space is limited, so register here. Continue reading
Notices are going out for the MHA Conference this year, to be held in Rochester NY, June 4-7. Now rescheduled for Park City, June 10-12, 2021! The schedule is not up yet, but a panel I organized has been accepted, entitled “Developing LDS Exegesis, Hermeneutics, and Epistemology from 1876-1980: Trends and Influences.” Continue reading
The new manual follows a more logical division than the old, which treated 1 Nephi 8-12 and 15 as one unit, and 1Ne 13-14 as another. Nephi’s vision and then explanation runs from chapters 11-15. However, lacking time for a full rewrite, I’m putting up my two posts separately, which follow the old division. Continue reading
Several scholars have identified a LDS shift in the mid-20th-century towards a kind of fundamentalism. In 1980, for example, Leonard Arrington reflected in his journal on the emergence
at BYU in the 1950s…. particularly in the College of Religion [of] A sort of Mormon Fundamentalism like Protestant Fundamentalism [which] Emphasizes Biblical literalism, rejects the Higher Criticism [in biblical studies, and] the law of evolution… Continue reading
This is a grab-bag of sorts; I’ve been sick for a few days, without full dedicated brainpower to revise/expand. Still, there’s a lot of good stuff here, food for thought.
A medieval scribe. Jean le Tavernier, Public Domain
I first wrote this over 15 years ago, reposted it somewhere else, and both locations have now disappeared from the online ether. So, given that we’re studying Revelation right now, I thought I’d repost it, slightly edited but uncorrected or updated, and complete with my younger, brasher style.
What’s the best LDS response to the idea that Revelation 22:18-19 closes the canon? Continue reading
The final book! We’ve almost made it through! The end is nigh!
First, a note on names. This is the book of Revelation (singular) not the book of RevelationS (plural.) It’s a really common mistake in Hollywood and elsewhere, like the “books of the Bible” tie I have, above The title Revelation comes from Rev 1:1, with that ambiguous “of” preposition. “The revelation of Jesus” can mean “a revelation that is about Jesus,” “a revelation from Jesus,” or “the revelation belonging to Jesus.” Continue reading
1 John opens reminiscent of both the Gospel of John (thematically) and Luke/Acts (in contrast). That is, the vocabulary and ideas resemble John (the Word of life made visible, eternal life, light/darkness, etc). But the point-of-view contrasts Luke. Whereas Luke says he had to investigate and talk to witness, because he wasn’t a firsthand eyewitness himself, 1Jo 1:1 and 1Jo 1:3 strongly imply the opposite for the author (authors?) of 1 John. Note the plural “we” there, present from the first verses onwards. Is this a rhetorical “we” or a real “we”? Continue reading
Recent Comments