© 2021 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
It’s not my place to ask Interpreter or individual scholars what to publish, but I for one would absolutely love to see a more thorough response to some of these individual essays. I think Brother Lindsay is quite right that not all the essays were created equal.
In a very real sense theory of translation (translatology for kicks) underlies every form of Book of Mormon apologetics. The question of metallurgy could be resolved by the idea of “creative and cultural translation”, perhaps, but a more literal form of translation would be needed, imo, for Brother Gardner’s theory on Mesoamerican cardinal directions to really apply (though I’m not 100% on that opinion, could think otherwise, and am not sold on translation inerrancy.) I am pretty pleased with Samuel Morris Brown’s work on that and it would likely be a fruitful subject for Interpreter to cover.
Thank you, Brant. I appreciated your careful introduction, spelling out the different natures of this journal and the book you reviewed. Very helpful. There are some great moments in the book, but also a few questionable sections that, in spite of the appearance of scholarly rigor, are seriously flawed and blinded by pet assumptions. Many chapters would benefit from a separate detailed review, as we recently had from Kent Jackson, but for a good overall view of the book, this was excellent.