“Interpreter” in the “Salt Lake Tribune”

 

The Tribune reporter asked for a photograph. I found several online and sent them in. This was one of them. I said that it really captured the essence of Me, but they didn’t use it.

 

An okay article by Peggy Fletcher Stack appeared this afternoon on, partially anyway, the rise of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.  There are things in it with which I disagree or which I would prefer to have been approached differently, but I suppose I can scarcely expect the Salt Lake Tribune simply to reproduce an Interpreter press release (as if we had the money and staff to produce such a thing!)

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-studies-institute.html.csp

 

I think that the most important fact is that they spelled our name right.  Or, to be more precise, that they supplied our Web address.  Interpreter will thrive as it becomes better known.  No publicity, in that sense, is really bad publicity.

 

One fact issue that I should have caught (Peggy Stack gave me a shot, but I was in a hurry and missed this):  The article says that the Maxwell Institute, in following its new course, has launched an “ambitious” publishing program involving three journals.  But we’ve had precisely those three journals for a long time.  The only difference between this “ambitious” new publishing program and the apparently unambitious previous one is that the Review, which was formerly published twice a year, will, when it reappears at the end of 2013 after a two-year absence, increase its pace of publication from twice annually to . . . once!

 

 

  • Pingback: Confusion Abounds « Mormon Scripture Explorations

  • John Ziebarth

    I read Dr. Peterson’s curriculum vitae in Stack’s article, what is Bradford’s?

  • Non Clemanture

    Answering that question might accidentally lend some credibility in the direction of Bradford, but since you asked, here’s his background, which a Google search might also have discovered, although your question wasn’t really a question as much as an accusation, and Google doesn’t understand accusations yet:

    “Bradford received a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Utah in 1960 and a master’s degree in business administration from San Francisco State University in 1965. He later earned a master’s degree and a PhD in religious studies from the University of California, Santa Barbara.”

    • danpeterson

      I’m not sure that the question was so much about his degrees as about his publications and academic record — e.g., course teaching and scholarly presentations. (I could be wrong, of course.)

      Perhaps you could furnish a list of them, or something of that sort.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    A really objective story would have also noted the many books that had been published under FARMS auspices, including the republication in a unified format of Hugh Nibley’s collected works, and their continued (I hope) availability online. Indeed, I always perceived FARMS as embodiment of the work begun by Nibley when he was one of the very few LDS scholars with outstanding credentials in the academic skills he brought to bear in preparing his Mormon-themed books, basically providing the first volume in just about every subject matter area that was covered by later FARMS books and journals.
    The increase in Mormon Studies publications at other campuses is revolutionary because for many years it has been rare for ANY scholars who are not Mormon themselves to invest in anything that could be called an aspect of “Mormon Studies”. Until recent times, most of the non-Mormon interest has been in the unique history of the Mormons and their adversarial relationship with several states and then with the Federal government itself. There has been growth of sociological study of Mormons and Mormonism (in which I would include the studies collected and analyzed in the book American Grace and the studies of religion among american teenagers that were the focus of the book “Almost Christian”), with the hallmark being works by Armand Mauss (LDS) and Rodney Stark (not LDS). And now even studies of theological aspects of Mormonism are becoming of interest to scholars outside the Church. So it is understandable that a journal focused on supporting this inter-faith scholarship could be supported by the Maxwell Institute. Nevertheless, there is no clear reason why the kind of articles that applied scjholarship to apologetics, in the tradition of Hugh Nibley, could not continue as well. After all, while some non-Mormon scholars might be so thin-skinned they cannot stand to hear that Mormon scholars actually believe in the religion they study, the ones who provide scholarship of value already know that there are plenty of believing Mormon scholars among their peers, who are entitled to engage in active defense against attacks by people who are NOT objective, non-Mormon scholars, but people with a negative agenda. After all, Richard Mouw does not apologize for his beliefs as an Evangelical Christian, even as he studies what Mormons believe in order to translate them for his own natural audience. No one has a right to demand that he be noncommittal about his own religious loyalties, especially his co-religionists.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X