The logical place for a philological approach to the Book of Mormon to begin is with Mormon, its eponymous editor, and his sources. How much did Mormon know about the Nephites, and what kind of records did he have to work with?
When I look at recent studies of the Book of Mormon, the biggest deficit I see is the lack of instinct for philology.
SWOT analysis seems to be something business majors learn their first semester. I’ve never been a business major, but it seems like a reasonable way to start thinking about what the church is facing in these virus-invested times of unknown duration.
They say novel Coronavirus disease is easier on kids, but I’m not sure that’s the case.
For all their differences, the essential and irreducible historical dilemma of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon is very much the same.
To update what Craig wrote in 2010: Times and Seasons is happy to welcome as a guest blogger Steve Smith, who teaches and writes mainly about religious freedom, constitutional law, and jurisprudence. His most recent book is Pagans and Christians…
Don’t bring immanent evidence to a transcendent argument.
Yes. Should historians write about current events? Maybe not. But when they do, they shouldn’t do it like this.
Do not ascribe to fear or compulsion what can be best explained by love.
When I teach Revelation 1-11 to my youth Sunday School class, I’ll probably start off by saying something about gasoline.
General Conference begins in two days. I’m looking forward to it, but not as much to the online responses.
This hit my inbox this afternoon: In case you hadn’t heard, Clark Goble just passed away from a stroke.
Adiaphora is a term that has played an important role in Lutheran history but not much in our own, although perhaps it should.