![\"Lewis](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2017\/01\/C.s.lewis3_.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
***<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been on the road all day, so I\u2019m just getting to it now, but a new article, full to overflowing with my legendary mendacity, viciousness, and venom, went up in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em> today:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Daniel C. Peterson, \u201cCelebrating Exactitude, When It\u2019s Appropriate\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/strong>It\u2019s almost always better to be right than to be wrong, to be exact than to be sloppy. In scholarship generally and serious scriptural study specifically, it\u2019s important to work toward precision in both interpretation and explanation. However, the Lord is fully capable of reaching us where we are, despite our imperfect languages and our limited capacities. \u201cThese commandments are of me,\u201d he says at D&C 1:24, \u201cand were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n And here are links to a few articles in a previous number of Interpreter<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen, and Ryan Dahle, \u201cTextual Criticism and the Book of Moses: A Response to Colby Townsend\u2019s \u201cReturning to the Sources,\u201d Part 1 of 2\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Review of Colby Townsend, \u201cReturning to the Sources: Integrating Textual Criticism in the Study of Early Mormon Texts and History.\u201d\u00a0Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies<\/em>\u00a010, no. 1 (2019): 55\u201385,\u00a0https:\/\/digitalcommons.usu.edu\/imwjournal\/vol10\/iss1\/6\/<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong>\u00a0Textual criticism tries by a\u00a0variety of methods to understand the \u201coriginal\u201d or \u201cbest\u201d wording of a\u00a0document that may exist in multiple, conflicting versions or where the manuscripts are confusing or difficult to read. The present article, Part 1 of a\u00a0two-part series by Jeffrey\u00a0M.\u00a0Bradshaw and Ryan Dahle, commends Colby Townsend\u2019s efforts to raise awareness of the importance of textual criticism, while differing on some interpretations. Among the differences discussed is the question of whether it is better to read Moses\u00a07:28 as it was dictated in Old Testament 1 version of the Joseph Smith Translation manuscript (OT1) that \u201cGod wept,\u201d or rather to read it as it was later revised in the Old Testament 2 version (OT2) that \u201cEnoch wept.\u201d Far from being an obscure technical detail, the juxtaposition of the two versions of this verse raises general questions as to whether readings based on the latest revisions of Latter-day Saint scripture manuscripts should always take priority over the original dictations. A\u00a0dialogue with Colby Townsend and Charles Harrell on rich issues of theological and historical relevance demonstrates the potential impact of the different answers to such questions by different scholars. In a\u00a0separate discussion that highlights the potential significance of handwriting analysis to textual criticism, Bradshaw and Dahle respond to Townsend\u2019s arguments that the spelling difference between the names\u00a0<\/em>Mahujah\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>Mahijah\u00a0in the Book of Moses may be due to a\u00a0transcription error.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Louis C. Midgley, \u201cTocqueville on New Prophets and the Tyranny of Public Opinion\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong>\u00a0Louis Midgley discusses the rise and fall in popularity of Alexis de Toqueville\u2019s unrivaled volumes entitled\u00a0<\/em>Democracy in America\u00a0and the impressive renaissance of interest they have enjoyed since 1930. They were published at a time when Europe was looking for guiding principles to replace aristocratic governments with democratic regimes. Importantly, however, Toqueville also reflected broadly on the crucial roles of religion and family in sustaining the virtues necessary for stable democracies. Toqueville\u2019s arguments that faith in God and in immortality are essential for maintaining a strong society of a free people are more crucial than ever to Latter-day Saints and all those wishing to preserve democracy in America today.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n [Editor\u2019s Note:\u00a0<\/strong>Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.<\/span><\/p>\n See Louis Midgley, \u201cTocqueville on New Prophets and the Tyranny of Public Opinion,\u201d in\u00a0\u201cTo Seek the Law of the Lord\u201d: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch,<\/em>\u00a0ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 171\u201388. Further information at\u00a0https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/to-seek-the-law-of-the-lord-essays-in-honor-of-john-w-welch-2\/<\/a>.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Robert L. Millet, \u201cThe Theology of C. S. Lewis: A Latter-day Saint Perspective\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract: In this essay, Robert Millet describes the work and impact of C. S. Lewis as it pertains to the Latter-day Saints. He explores possible reasons why Church leaders have felt comfortable quoting Lewis in General Conference more than any other non-Latter-day Saint writer and provides a substantial list of the subjects for which his writings have had special appeal to the Saints. While acknowledging Lewis\u2019 personal faults and the obvious points of difference between his faith and our own, Millet concludes with an expression of gratitude for his \u201clasting lessons and his noble legacy.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n [Editor\u2019s Note:\u00a0<\/strong>Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.<\/span><\/p>\n See Robert L. Millet, \u201cThe Theology of C. S. Lewis: A Latter-day Saint Perspective,\u201d in\u00a0\u201cTo Seek the Law of the Lord\u201d: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch,<\/em>\u00a0ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 189\u2013208. Further information at\u00a0https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/to-seek-the-law-of-the-lord-essays-in-honor-of-john-w-welch-2\/<\/a>.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Stephen O. Smoot, \u201cNotes on Book of Mormon Heads\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong>\u00a0This paper looks at the two types of heads used in the Book of Mormon. It argues against a recent theory that these heads served as mnemonic cues that enabled Joseph Smith to extemporaneously compose and dictate the text. Instead, it argues that the function and form of heads in the Book of Mormon finds ancient precedent in Egyptian literary culture and scribal practice. A brief addendum on the ancient precedent for the chapter breaks in the original text of the Book of Mormon is also provided.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n