Page 1 of 1 (17 items)
This post has 16 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 1560
Blair Laird | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Apr 9 2017 2:45 PM

Really hoping we can get this collection published in logos 

https://www.logos.com/product/16021/mormon-studies-collection

Posts 418
James C. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 9 2017 3:06 PM

I've had a bid in for this since it was put up. 

Posts 1601
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 9 2017 3:58 PM

Have you seen the previous long threads on it?

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 2967
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 9 2017 6:43 PM

Ben:

Have you seen the previous long threads on it?

The summary of those threads [as I read them] is that the information is too far out of date to be useful.

For example none of it covers the welcoming of Blacks into the church leadership in the mid 1970's.

Posts 5321
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Apr 9 2017 7:31 PM

Not only out of date but material is often mined for quotes that make the LDS faith look bad. Now despite what one may feel about the LDS church, almost any sermons set could be mined to come up with things to ensure that you look bad... context is everything. Including broader social context. 

-dan

Posts 670
Michael S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 6:51 AM

Anytime quotes are taken out of context creates a straw man.  However, there have been enough sound study done on the LDS to show it to be heretical.

Posts 1172
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 9:00 AM

There are a few items in this set that I would very much like to have in Logos.  I'm primarily interested in:

  • The Book of Mormon
  • The Pearl of Great Price
  • The Doctrine and Covenants

I don't want to misrepresent anything, but it's my understanding that these volumes are still considered to be standard works.  The "History of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" also looks interesting.

I've bid on this collection because $30 seems to me to be a reasonable price for the volumes that I do want.

Posts 5321
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 9:22 AM

Heresy is a loaded word. Orthodox consider catholic to be heretical, Catholics consider most all Protestant denominations heretics, I am not trying to argue that we are all guilty of heresy or there is no truth. But we are not suppose to argue those things here. And sad as some may find it is much of what Mormons or Jehovah witnesses believe a vast majority is the same as our beliefs. Now there are extremely important differences that most of us would call heresy, but it is humbling to remember heresy of one sort or another is the basis of most all our denominations.

-dan 

Posts 1601
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 9:43 AM

As the token Mormon on the board since before 2000 (and at risk of infringing board guidelines), let me say that I don't mind being called a "heretical Christian," which is less misleading than being labeled "non-Christian."

The former at least says Mormonism is Christo-centric or within the general Christian tradition, albeit in a non-orthodox or non-traditional way. The latter ("non-Christian") leads people into thinking that Mormonism is more like e.g. Hinduism, in which Jesus plays no role. So I'm ok with people thinking I believe in Jesus the wrong way as opposed to not believing in Him at all. 

Back on track, I suggested an updated, academic Mormon Studies collection here. If you want to study Mormonism like a responsible academic (as opposed to a confessional counter-cultist) these are good. 
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88557.aspx 

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 1172
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 9:53 AM

Ben:

Back on track, I suggested an updated, academic Mormon Studies collection here. If you want to study Mormonism like a responsible academic (as opposed to a confessional counter-cultist) these are good. 
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88557.aspx 

I would love to see that.  My comment was not at all intended to minimize the value of having good current materials on Mormonism. I do still think there would be some value in having a low-cost collection of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants.

Posts 1452
David Wanat | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 10:12 AM

David Ames:

Ben:

Have you seen the previous long threads on it?

The summary of those threads [as I read them] is that the information is too far out of date to be useful.

For example none of it covers the welcoming of Blacks into the church leadership in the mid 1970's.

You can get the current version in one volume on Kindle for free (or at least I did a couple years back). However they did remove previous doctrines that contradict the current ones. If one wants to just see what they currently hold, then that is adequate. But if some scholar wants to compare and contrast, I think the older versions would be useful.

WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum 9 Ultimate

Posts 418
James C. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 10:22 AM

I have no problem reading old and “out of date” material. I read Augustine, Clement, Justine, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Dante, Luther, Lincoln, Spurgeon, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

I’d like to have the Mormon material as well as the old Jehovah’s Witnesses material, and lots of other old religious, secular, political, philosophic, etc. types of material. New is not always better and it’s important to understand the past and especially the early writings from a religious movement. They may have changed their beliefs and grown but it’s still good to understand the roots. At least that’s what I think.

It sometimes appears that there is an evolutionary snobbery (by some. Not saying anyone in this thread is like that). New is seen as always good and old is always bad.

Posts 1172
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 11:13 AM

One point that I believe Ben has raised in past threads is that groups that believe in ongoing revelation have a somewhat different dynamic than those that do not.  Augustine and I are both wrestling with how best to understand and apply the same body of revelation.  We live in different times, but we are struggling with the same underlying revelation. That gives Augustine's thoughts and insights a direct relevance to me. The same might not be in Mormonism. Today's Mormons may not find the writings of a Mormon thinker from a 150 years ago relevant if they believe that intervening revelations have a direct bearing on the issue they're studying.

Ben, please correct me if I didn't channel you correctly.

Posts 1601
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 11:55 AM

The dynamic that EastTN articulates is certainly part of it. (Richard Mouw gets at it well in this free article, "it is important to underscore here...") The other issue is the nature of the majority of documents there, the Journal of Discourses. There are at least three issues here.

First, Mormonism does have a different authority structure and relationship to scripture more like Catholics and Jews than Protestants, and Mormon sources should be read with that understanding. Moreover, inerrancy (whether in the Bible or uniquely Mormon scripture, prophets living or dead) is not a tenet of Mormonism. This means that reading Mormon sources (like JoD) through a particular inerrant/sola scriptura/Protestant lens will inevitably distort it. 

Second, about the source itself. Some outside (and a few inside) the tradition want to mine JoD as if it were a source of foundational theological statements that are in some sense binding or heavily formative, like Calvin's Institutes, or Luther's writings. But JoD is a record of spontaneous local sermons (people were called on on the spot to speak), not well-thought out theological arguments by theologians staking out hard doctrinal positions. 

Third, JoD was produced through one Mormon trying to make some money. Trained in Pittman shorthand, he thought that by taking down the sermons, transcribing them, and selling them to Mormons in England (who were desperate for Mormon literature), he could support himself. Recent research by LDS scholars has shown that he often cut out, changed, or expanded in going from his shorthand to the published text. Consequently, while it may be loosely or generally reliable, JoD cannot be taken as verbatim accounts of these spontaneous sermons. This is particularly important when someone seizes on particular verbiage for doctrinal ammunition (whether LDS or not.) See this article and the authors interviewed in this podcast.  

So it has some value as a historical source, but lots of caveats. JoD is in public domain and already searchable elsewhere. There are few references to it (and no links, of course) in current Logos books, and since JoD has few explicit citations of scripture, bringing it into Logos format will not add a lot of value, imo. The Logos-ized text will not contain many inbound or outbound links.

I would welcome seeing uniquely Mormon scripture in Logos (which would be particularly useful if we had some of the books in my proposed Mormon Studies collection linked above), but that's not my call.

Edit: Again, I feel like I'm skirting the limits of the board guidelines, so thanks for your indulgence. 

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 12:54 PM

I can see how a more limited offering might work, as suggested above. This one's DOA using Denise's progress rule: "50% after a month or watch it die".

https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=mormon&start=0&sort=rel&pageSize=15 

That's how many Mormons-are-wrong books Logos has, but no Book of Mormon, etc to see what they're talking about. The list is longer, but Logos conflates Mormons with the other groups Logos doesn't like.

This collection is also odd. $400 after ship? Who in their right mind would purchase? And mainly PD's.  Vs far better choices available.

I wish there was a good critical book on Mormonism (text critical, as how it fits into 2nd Temple concepts, early Christianity, etc). It's not by accident the early Mormon success was from the conservative side of Christianity.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 1601
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 1:14 PM

I posted some links to text-critical sources of the Book of Mormon and the D&C in this thread. 
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/48213.aspx 

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 10 2017 2:22 PM

Actually, Ben, you posted a bunch. Which I didn't see what I was seeking (or I was blind). And you've gone well beyond reason, in being gracious and forthcoming.

I don't expect an answer, but maybe if I better express my search. My explanation will likely violate the forum, but here goes.

Let's say, instead we're wondering why the success of various teachers in 1st century Palestine ... John, Judas, Jesus, the Pharisees as a group, the Qumran group. What were they working off of, such that thousands would oddly convert? Accept text-rewrites. Powerful angels? Teachings that Moses got it wrong? Risk their lives? Sit in the desert heat with little to show for it? In this specific case, my guess is the sudden appearance of prophetic books ... Daniel, Enoch, etc. And these books had internal 'hooks' that gave them creedance. The time of the end, etc.

J. Smith worked off similar 'hooks' that quickly converted thousands. The thousands weren't stupid (1830s ... indeed the bulk were well versed in the Bible text). So, I'm looking for a discussion of those early textual arguments ... before authoritative Mormonism set in. John D Lee discussed a few, but just hints.

If confusing, maybe you better pass on this one!

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Page 1 of 1 (17 items) | RSS