![\"Our](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2015\/06\/adam-eve-39458-gallery.jpg\")
<\/a>Thursday is our day at the website of the Interpreter Foundation for posting reprints of book chapters. \u00a0Today is Thursday, so we\u2019ve posted the reprint of a book chapter. \u00a0Please note that today isn\u2019t Friday. \u00a0But Friday is the day on which we publish new articles in the Interpreter Foundation\u2019s journal. \u00a0I spell this out here as clearly as I can, so as not to confuse and upset one of our readers, who has previously imagined that, by posting chapter reprints on Thursday, we were deceptively trying to pretend that they were actually new articles that had been posted on Friday. \u00a0(Or something like that.) \u00a0I think that we were able to sort his confusion out for him, but you never know when the malady might flare up again. \u00a0Anyway, here is today\u2019s chapter reprint: \u00a0Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: \u201cWomen, Eve, and the Mosaic Covenant: A Latter-day Saint Theological Reading,\u201d<\/em><\/a>\u00a0written by Shon D. Hopkin<\/a>:<\/p>\n Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article originally appeared in Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks<\/em>, edited by Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin. For more information, go to https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/seek-ye-words-of-wisdom\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to Luke Timothy Johnson, \u201cBiblical scholars in the future will probably find the examination of the world that the New Testament creates more fruitful than the study of the world that created the New Testament.\u201d Some biblical scholars have begun to turn their attention from the world that lies behind the text (the historical context) and the world that lies within the text (close readings and rhetorical criticism) to the world in front of<\/em> the text. Stated differently, how do current readers approach the text and continue to gain meaning from it?\u201d<\/p>\n For those who may still be wondering, here\u2019s an article that may help \u2014 from, of all places, the magazine Skeptic<\/em>: \u00a0\u201cIs Sex Binary? Eight Arguments and a Leading Nonbinary Theory Examined\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe \u2018war on boys\u2019 led to a \u2018masculinity crisis\u2019 \u2014 what\u2019s new in the effort to help America\u2019s struggling young men? Wes Moore, Spencer Cox and Gavin Newsom are among governors seeking solutions to a problem that has been talked about for decades\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 This is, of course, an important issue in its own right. \u00a0As an aside, though, I note that they\u2019re now beginning to talk about \u201capprenticeships,\u201d which were also a consideration in the lead-up to Utah\u2019s 1852 Service Act, about which I\u2019ve recently spoken<\/a> and written<\/a>.<\/p>\n I saw a great deal of remarkably nasty rejoicing in the recent death of the Evangelical Protestant child psychologist Dr. James Dobson. \u00a0I freely admit that the sheer quantity and intensity of the vituperation caught me by surprise. \u00a0(I commented on the hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric that celebrated his passing here<\/a> and here<\/a> and here<\/a>.) \u00a0It turns out, though, that there are other viewpoints on the man and his legacy. \u00a0Here\u2019s one of them: \u00a0\u201cJames Dobson was right all along about the family \u2014 Modern social science backs up Dobson\u2019s prophetic views about marriage.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 And here<\/a> is a loving Facebook tribute from his son.<\/p>\n And, whether or not you can access it in National Review<\/em>, this is a worthwhile read: \u00a0\u201cShould We Have Allied with Hitler? \u2018Just asking questions\u2019 makes its dumbest query yet.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n And here\u2019s some very discouraging news: \u00a0\u201cThere\u2019s no room for Trump\u2019s face on Mount Rushmore, despite MAGA push:\u00a0Even back in 1936, lead sculptor Gutzon Borglum said the \u201cstone limitations\u201d of the site meant a fifth person couldn\u2019t be added.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 We\u2019ll either need to identify (or to build) a new mountain for the project or \u2014 and this may be more practical \u2014 to eliminate Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, or Lincoln (or, perhaps, to eliminate all<\/em> of them) in order to create usable space.<\/p>\n You heard it here first! \u00a0\u201cAmanda Grace Warns: Mormon Scandal, Marco Rubio and Divine Intervention\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Even after the torrential rain that my area received last night, we\u2019re still far behind for 2025: \u00a0\u201cDrought continues to plague Utah, officials stress conservation:\u00a0Reservoir levels are dipping and one irrigation company in northern Utah has cut its secondary water allotments to users by half\u201d<\/a> \u00a0I\u2019m trying to be a bit more careful, personally. \u00a0If everybody in Utah were to save on average just a gallon of water daily \u2014 which I suspect to be quite possible (e.g., by turning water off while brushing teeth, rinsing glasses a little more quickly, taking slightly shorter showers [and maybe turning the water off while soaping up], and a thousand other little measures) \u2014 that would result in savings of millions of gallons per day, and in saving a vast amount of water in a year.<\/p>\n Theists and theism have always had a particular hatred for women and girls, and that hatred is clearly on display in this item from the Christopher Hitchens Memorial \u201cHow Religion Poisons Everything\u201d File<\/em>\u2122: \u00a0\u201cGiving Machine Donations Educate and Empower Girls in Nepal:\u00a0Donated menstrual kits and classes are helping end \u2018period poverty\u2019 in Nepal\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Sadly, though, the malign attentions of religious believers aren\u2019t confined<\/em> to girls and women. \u00a0They\u2019re universal. \u00a0Here are some chilling additional examples from the Hitchens File<\/em>: \u00a0\u201cBy the numbers: Serving those in need:\u00a0See how members of the Church served others around the world in 2024\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a>