[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You didn't read the article if that is what you've gleaned from it.

The article discusses ever so briefly the ancient trinitarian and anti-trinitarian doctrines and then how they were discussed within the 19th century context. It then looked at how these doctrines could be answered within the terms of the debate for the 19th century, not whether the BoM should be considered a 19th century document. If you gleaned what I suppose you gleaned, you either have a dumb associate bringing you a memo, or you were distracted.

It is more an article looking for a hermeneutic related to various looks at Trinitarianism. 19th century BoM critics, viewed the work as complying with the various doctrines of trinitarianism.

The other articles deal with post-modernism and deconstructionism.

Brodie is so passee. Yes, she brought Joseph Smith exegesis into the modern day, but her heavy-handed biases are plain for all scholars to notice. To wit, Carmon Hardy or the author of In Sacred Loneliness. There's a lot better scholarship out there on Mormonism. You're time-locked into a mid twentieth century mentality about Mormonism, while it has crept forward without you.

Thanks for the review. Do I still need to read it?