https://interpreterfoundation.org/inter ... ous-sheep/
The TL:DR of this most recent article is basically, "Here's one dude's interpretation of John 10."
This line caught my interest:
It's interesting just how postmodern and relativist Mormon apologetics has become. It is out of necessity, of course. Interpretations of everything have to be completely amorphous, ambiguous, and ready to change at a moment's notice to fit whatever problem the Mormon apologist is trying to solve at the moment. Some interpretations have to be mutually contradictory, and deployed simultaneously in order to make Mormonism look better and win an argument.Kyler wrote:Stenson’s article provides me with a solid reminder that scripture, like all literature, doesn’t necessarily have a single, binding interpretation.
I do, however, welcome this development. This is a sign of a religion that is growing up. Growing out of fundamentalism, literalism, and legalism. Judaism and Catholicism both allow for nearly endless personal interpretation of scripture. What theologians and apologists and preachers write and say about scripture is becoming less and less relevant, and one's own interpretation is becoming more and more important.
The roadblock, of course, is the hierarchy of the Mormon church and its leadership. They set clear, sometimes fundamentalist boundaries on what interpretations are valid or not. And they will excommunicate you for not staying within the lines. It will be interesting to see that dynamic between personal religious belief and Mormon leaders play out in the coming years.