kairos wrote:Many of you may not know that Michael Wilcox is probably one of the best known, admired and followed LDS writers and speakers around. His tours all over the world fill up immediately. His groupies at Education Week number in the thousands. He is well loved by deseret book which has published everything he writes because it probably sells pretty well.
My point is imho the Interpreter is on thin ice trying to review his work with so many nitpicks. They are not going to turn the faithful off because he has good insights and normally writes on subjects that interest the sheep. He lately put out one on women in the scriptures, has several on the endtimes/revelation etc.
So I don't see what on earth the apologists get out of picking on him.
Kairos,
To clarify here, I would note that the Interpreter review, while suffering from editing problems, is entirely positive toward Wilcox's book.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
Cicero wrote:Methinks the Interpreter owes Tom a stipend for his editing work.
Maybe Bradford is still holding onto some money for editing fees from 3 or 4 years ago that could be paid to Tom.
I appreciate your comments here, but I must insist that I perform this labor for the good of Interpreter. To accept fees would compromise my ability to serve as an ex-officio member of Interpreter's absolutely independent article-review committee.
Speaking of Bradford, I wonder how the national search for the next director of the Maxwell Institute is proceeding. I haven't seen a job announcement yet.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
