This month, I’ll be presenting a paper on the JST at a conference. I’m going to outline the use of the JST in Mark and then suggest that the moves that the JST makes could and should be adopted by LDS biblical scholars. One section of the paper argues that the JST–indeed, all revelation–is not inerrant. Joseph’s use (and nonuse) of the JST later in his ministry suggest that he did not take the JST as a perfected form of scripture.
The question of what the “abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14) is came up in my recent post, so I thought I’d post a draft version of my work on this topic for the BYUNTC Mark volume.
Julie Rowe’s prophecies of an imminent end of the world have been getting a bit of attention lately. So this might be a good time to review Jesus’ teachings on the matter.
Yesterday, President Oscarson announced on her Facebook page that she was now assigned to be a member of the Missionary Executive Council. President Burton is now a member of the Priesthood Executive Council (which has been renamed the Priesthood and Family Executive Council) and President Wixom is now on the Temple and Family History Executive Council. In an article in the Deseret News, former General RS Presidency member Sheri Dew said that “This is yet another important step forward in the restoration of the gospel.”
So a friend of mine is going to shepherd a much-needed project: an index of theological, exegetical, historical, and doctrinal writings by LDS women.
The first line of this lesson reads, “To prepare to be a righteous wife and mother, young women should focus on the Savior and on developing Christlike attributes,” so that’s what I decided to focus the lesson on.
If you are in Provo on July 31st:
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. Most ancient manuscripts of Mark end after 16:8 and early Christians do not seem to know any of this chapter after verse 8. The style, vocabulary, and themes in Mark 16:9–20 are quite different from the rest of Mark. Therefore, the vast majority of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark originally ended with verse 8 and that verses 9–20 are a later addition by another author. It is also possible that the original ending (any material after verse 8) was somehow lost. Suppose for a moment that, as most scholars believe, the Gospel did originally end after verse 8. Why did Mark write such an abrupt ending? What effect does it have on you as a reader? (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. As you read Mark 15, look for irony. Consider why so much in this chapter is ironic and what you should learn from it. (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. Why was a story as embarrassing as Peter’s betrayal included in the scriptures? Consider D & C 1:24–28. (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. Scholar Fernando Segovia lists seven different scholarly approaches to John 14-17: (1) Historicizing: the discourse is completely accurate, therefore chapter 15 occurs in a different location (because of 14:31). (2) Transpositional: sometime during transmission, the chapters were rearranged. (3) Redactional: there is a second speech (chapters 15–16) which is a different version of the first speech (chapter 14). (4) Symbolic: 14:31 is understood symbolically. (5) Unfinished: the text is a “rough draft;” the author did not finish polishing the text. (6) Compositional: the apparent contradictions in the text were deliberately crafted by the author to provoke the reader to think. (7) Integrative: regardless of the text’s history, we should ask: How does it now read? One example of this is to find a chiasmus: A love, glory (13:1–38) B Jesus’ departure (14:1–31) C joy/hate, abiding/persecution (15:1–11) D focal point: 15:12–17 C’ joy/hate, abiding/persecution (15:18–16:3) B’ Jesus’ departure (16:4–33) A’ love, glory (17:1–26) For which of the above theories can you make a good case based on the evidence in the text? Which ones seem without merit? (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. Some scholars conclude that women were present at the Last Supper. They cite the following evidence: (1) Compare Mark 14:28 with Mark 16:7. (2) Referring to “one of the twelve” in Mark 14:20 means that there were others present (see also Mark 14:16 and 17). (3) The tradition for Passover was for women to be present and it would have been worthy of mention if Jesus were to depart from this tradition. (4) Women “came up with him unto Jerusalem” (Mark 15:41) and the reason that Jesus went to Jerusalem was to celebrate the Passover. Do you find these arguments persuasive? Why or why not? (How) does it matter if women were at the Last Supper? (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
One of the defining characteristics of the Gospel of Luke is that it contains gender pairs, meaning that the same story or event happens twice–once to a man and once to a woman.
So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises. In what ways is a wedding celebration a good metaphor for the coming of the kingdom (see Matthew 25:1-13)? (adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
So this week, the Salt Lake Tribune sponsored a live “Trib Talk;” the topic was “what Mormon women want.” You can watch it here. Afterwards, there was criticism that there wasn’t a traditional or a conservative or a happy-with-the-status-quo (or whatever term you’d prefer) position represented. (There was also criticism that, at least initially, it was planned as an all-white panel, but that’s a topic for a different post.) I have heard that more-traditional women were invited, but either refused or later backed out. There is also this dialogue you can watch, featuring Melissa Inouye, who identifies as an egalitarian feminist, and Caroline Allen, who identifies as a maternal feminist. I have a few thoughts about all of this:
Those wanting to follow the counsel from the first session of General Conference last night about the importance of defending the family will be very interested in this article (please ignore the click-baity headline and read the actual article). A much shorter version of the article was published in the Deseret News recently, but I think that even for the tl;dr crowd, the longer version is definitely worth the investment of time. This article is also well worth reading.
