![\"A](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2021\/07\/Near-Mormon-Row.jpeg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
***<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n A new article by the prolific BYU-Hawaii scholar Matthew L. Bowen<\/a> went up earlier today in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201c\u201cIf Ye Believe on His Name\u201d:Wordplay on the Name Samuel in Helaman 14:2, 12\u201313 and 3 Nephi 23:9 and the Doctrine of Christ in Samuel\u2019s Speech\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/strong>The Semitic\/Hebrew name Samuel (\u0161\u0115m\u00fb\u02be\u0113l) most likely means \u201chis name is El\u201d \u2014 i.e., \u201chis name [the name that he calls upon in worship] is El\u201d \u2014 although it was also associated with \u201chearing\u201d (\u0161\u0101ma\u02bf) God (e.g., 1\u00a0Samuel\u00a03:9\u201311). In the ancient Near East, the parental hope for one thus named is that the son (and \u201chis name\u201d) would glorify El (a name later understood in ancient Israel to refer to God); or, like the biblical prophet Samuel, the child would hear El\/God (\u201cEl is heard\u201d). The name \u0161\u0115m\u00fb\u02be\u0113l thus constituted an appropriate symbol of the mission of the Son of God who \u201cglorified the name of the Father\u201d (Ether\u00a012:8), was perfectly obedient to the Father in all things, and was the Prophet like Moses par excellence, whom Israel was to \u201chear\u201d or \u201chearken\u201d in all things (Deuteronomy\u00a018:15; 1\u00a0Nephi\u00a022:20; 3\u00a0Nephi\u00a020:32). Jesus may have referred to this in a\u00a0wordplay on the name Samuel when he said: \u201cI\u00a0commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead\u201d (3\u00a0Nephi\u00a023:9). Samuel the Lamanite had particularly emphasized \u201cbeliev[ing] on the name\u201d of God\u2019s Son in the second part of his speech (see Helaman\u00a014:2, 12\u201313) in advance of the latter\u2019s coming. Samuel thus seems to use a\u00a0recurrent or thematic rhetorical wordplay on his own name as an entry point to calling the Nephites to repent and return to living the doctrine of Christ, which activates the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Mormon took great care to show that all of the signs and prophecies that Samuel gave the Nephites of Zarahemla were fulfilled at the time of Jesus\u2019s birth, death, and resurrection as Jesus glorified the Father\u2019s name in\u00a0every particular, and found further fulfillment in some particulars during Mormon\u2019s own life and times.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n And, on this long holiday weekend in the United States, American readers may find themselves with extra time, which they can not only devote to seeing Witnesses<\/em> but to reading these articles from a past issue of Interpreter<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Daniel C. Peterson, \u201cIs Faith Compatible with Reason?\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong>\u00a0In this article I argue that faith is not only rationally justifiable but also inescapable simply because our decisions regarding ultimate questions must necessarily be made under conditions of objective uncertainty. I\u00a0review remarks by several prominent thinkers on the subject \u2014 both avowed atheists and several writers who have addressed the challenge implicit in issues related to faith and reason. I end my discussion by citing William\u00a0James, who articulated clearly the choices we must make in addressing these \u201cultimate questions.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Mark Hamstead, \u201cOn Being the Sons of Moses and Aaron: Another Look at Interpreting the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants contains what is commonly known by Latter-day Saints as the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. Priesthood leaders in the church are expected to teach and explain this Oath and Covenant to prospective Melchizedek Priesthood holders. However, the meanings of phrases within the Oath and Covenant are not well understood. For example: What does it mean to become the sons of Moses and Aaron? In what sense are bodies renewed? Are the promised blessings just for holders of the priesthood or for others as well? This paper discusses several ways that phrases in the Oath and Covenant have been interpreted. To identify differing interpretations, I conducted an extensive review of references to the Oath and Covenant in LDS conference addresses and the words of Joseph Smith using the\u00a0<\/em>LDS Scripture Citation Index. After considering these interpretations, I explore other ways the phrases could be interpreted to provide greater understanding of what it means to hold the priesthood and \u201cmagnify\u201d it.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Neal Rappleye, \u201c\u201cThe Time is Past\u201d: A Note on Samuel\u2019s Five-Year Prophecy\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/strong>The story of believers being nearly put to death before the appearance of the sign at Christ\u2019s birth is both inspiring and a little confusing. According to the Book of Mormon, the sign comes in the 92nd year, which was actually the sixth year after the prophecy had been made. There is little wonder why even some believers began to doubt. The setting of a final date by which the prophecy must be fulfilled, however, suggests that until that day, there must have been reason for even the nonbelievers to concede that fulfillment was still possible; yet after that deadline it was definitively too late. An understanding of Mesoamerican timekeeping practices and terminology provides one possible explanation.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Jeff Lindsay, \u201cToo Little or Too Much Like the Bible? A Novel Critique of the Book of Mormon Involving David and the Psalms\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0A recent graduate thesis proposes an intriguing new means for discerning if the Book of Mormon is historic or not. By looking at Book of Mormon references to David and the Psalms, the author concludes that it cannot be the product of an ancient Jewish people and that it is, instead, the result of Joseph Smith\u2019s \u201cplagiarism\u201d from the Bible and other sources. This paper examines the author\u2019s claims, how they are applied to the Book of Mormon, and proposes points the author does not take into consideration. While the author is to be congratulated for taking a fresh perspective on the Book of Mormon, ultimately his methodology fails and his conclusions fall flat.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n