"Six Days in August" reach an early milestone
The first draft of the script for the coming feature film Six Days in August is complete and being carefully evaluated.
I’ve had a number of people ask whether I could share a link to a video of my remarks on Easter Sunday. Not feeling entirely comfortable (or authorized) to treat a sacrament meeting talk that way, though, I sat down today with my friend Tom Pittman and recorded it. The talk is now available on YouTube as “Truly He has risen!” My delivery seems a bit lifeless to me, as I watch it now — sometimes a live audience is energizing — but I suppose it will serve the purpose.
My wife and I are pleased today to begin our slow and careful reading through the first draft of the script for Six Days in August — or, at least, for the feature-film component of “Six Days in August,” which is the next Interpreter Foundation movie project. We’ve been here before, with the “Witnesses” project. (For the products of which, see Witnesses and Undaunted Witnesses of the Book of the Book of Mormon and the website Witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the thirty-two short features — thus far (two or three are yet to be posted) — in the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon — Insights series.) This is an exciting moment, of course, but also a daunting one. Can we pull it off? We step forward with faith. If you would like to join with us in this effort, please do.
And, once gain, Jonn Claybaugh has kindly provided the Interpreter Foundation audience with some short notes for students and teachers of the Church’s “Come, Follow Me” curriculum: Come, Follow Me — New Testament Study and Teaching Helps: Lesson 17, April 17 — 23: Matthew 18; Luke 10 — “What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?”
For the 26 March 2023 Come, Follow Me segment of the Interpreter Radio Show, Martin Tanner discussed New Testament lesson 17, “What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?” on Matthew 18 and Luke 10: The New Testament in Context Lesson 17: “What Shall I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?” Matthew 18 and Luke 10.
The other segments of the 26 March 2023 radio show can be accessed at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-march-26-2023. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard weekly, on Sunday evenings, from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640. Or, of course, you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com.
To coin an absolutely original new phrase, folks, the Interpreter Foundation is a gift that goes on giving.
“It is winter in Narnia,” said Mr. Tumnus, “and has been for ever so long. . . . Why, it is she who has got all Narnia under her thumb. It’s she that makes it always winter. Always winter and never Christmas; think of that!” “How awful,” replied Lucy.
I don’t know about you, but I always find January and February, and even the very end of December, just a bit depressing. Christmas is over. There’s little to which to look forward except gray skies, cold weather, often-dirty snow, and bare, ruined trees. It can seem a bit desolate.
But I have an idea for you! At the invitation of Bountiful Travel, my wife and I are set to accompany a nearly two-week cruise from Australia around New Zealand and back, beginning on 9 February 2024 and concluding on 20 February 2024. (That will, of course, be during summer in the southern hemisphere — a good time to be there, and perhaps a good time not to be here.) We would enjoy having you along.
I’ve been reading the story again today about how, some time back, the Brethren were furious at John Gee and me for our having published something that was critical of the Joseph Smith Papers project, which led to our being summoned up to Salt Lake City and rebuked for our misbehavior.
There’s at least one thing, though, that’s wrong with this account: It’s essentially false.
A couple of the employees in the Historical Department of the Church were displeased that the Department’s then-recently published volume regarding the Book of Abraham had come under criticism in two reviews that had lately appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. Here are the two reviews:
Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource with Some Gaps”
Review of The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, eds. Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2018), 381 pages.
Abstract: The publication of high-resolution documents and carefully prepared transcripts related to the origins of the Book of Abraham in The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts is a remarkable achievement that can help students of Church history and of the Book of Abraham explore many aspects of that volume of scripture for themselves. The book, especially when coupled with the resources and advanced interface of the Joseph Smith Papers website, will provide lasting value for scholars, students, and anyone wishing to better understand the Book of Abraham and its complex origins. However, there are some gaps in the book that must be understood, including a mix of minor errors, questionable assumptions, and a few major problems that can unnecessarily lead readers to question the ancient roots and the divine inspiration behind the Book of Abraham. A future addendum could help resolve many such issues and would be a welcome addition. However, there may be a fundamental flaw in the commentary that tends to align with the way critics of the Church approach the Book of Abraham as a product of Joseph’s environment rather than a text rooted in revelation and antiquity. Sadly, in spite of hundreds of footnotes with extensive references to the research and perspectives of some scholars, this volume tends to exclude a great deal of relevant research provided by some noteworthy scholars. For example, it fails to mention even once the past scholarship of Hugh Nibley on these documents and generally neglects the work of other scholars that can point to the strengths of the Book of Abraham and give tools for coping with the thorny issues. The openness about the conundrums of the [Page 14]Book of Abraham should be encouraged, but it should be balanced with at least an awareness that there are noteworthy positives that readers can weigh against the question marks, and that there are frameworks that can help faithful readers understand how a divinely revealed text can be produced by the same man who wanted to begin learning Egyptian and Hebrew after he had already provided divine translation. Such a balance is needed in a book from the Church dealing with such sensitive issues, where misunderstanding has led some people out of the Church. Sadly, in spite of its many achievements in opening the doors to the documents associated with the Book of Abraham, this book lacks the balance that is needed.
John Gee, “The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles”
Review of The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, eds. Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2018), 381 pages.
Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Problems fill the volume, including misplaced photographs and numerous questionable transcriptions beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.
We weren’t “summoned” to Salt Lake City. We weren’t “called on the carpet.” No General Authorities, none of the Brethren, were involved in any way. John Gee and I happily met with a couple of senior staffers from the Church Historical Department, with whom we had a good conversation that, I think, led to better understanding between us.
You can pretty much rely on the fact that this kind of story, recounted by The Usual Suspects, is not true. Sometimes there will be a kernel of truth to it. Sometimes, though, it will lack even that.
While I’m at it, though, here are a couple of additional links that are relevant to the Gee and Lindsay reviews that displeased some people on the Historical Department staff up in Salt Lake City:
John Gee, “Prolegomena to a Study of the Egyptian Alphabet Documents in the Joseph Smith Papers”
Abstract: For many theories about the Book of Abraham, the Egyptian Alphabet documents are seen as the key to understanding the translation process. While the original publication of those documents allows many researchers access to the documents for the first time, careful attention to the Joseph Smith Papers as a whole and the practices of Joseph Smith’s scribes in particular allows for improvements in the date, labeling, and understanding of the historical context of the Egyptian Alphabet documents.This essay supports the understanding of these documents found in the other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers that the Egyptian Alphabet documents are an incidental by-product of the translation process rather than an essential step in that process.
John Gee, “Fantasy and Reality in the Translation of the Book of Abraham”
Abstract: The volume editors of The Joseph Smith Papers Revelations and Translations: Volume 4 propose a theory of translation of the Book of Abraham that is at odds with the documents they publish and with other documents and editorial comments published in the other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Two key elements of their proposal are the idea of simultaneous dictation of Book of Abraham Manuscripts in the handwritings of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish, and Joseph Smith’s use of the so-called Alphabet and Grammar. An examination of these theories in the light of the documents published in the Joseph Smith Papers shows that neither of these theories is historically tenable. The chronology the volume editors propose for the translation of the Book of Abraham creates more problems than it solves. A different chronology is proposed. Unfortunately, the analysis shows that the theory of translation of the Book of Abraham adopted by the Joseph Smith Papers volume editors is highly flawed.
