New Volume of Studies in the Bible and Antiquity

[_aussieguy55]

I read this board to see the latest apologetic approaches taken by LDS, none IMHO convince me to do a Don Bradley. I give a sliver of time to this and the other board. There is just so much to learn. I'd like to do a paper one day on Wes Walters and how Mormon apologists have dealt with him. Since he was instrumental in convincing me and a number of others to leave the LDS church, I suppose I can take up the mantel of defending him since he has died. by the way Dan it's a MTh not a "MA" which you often over emphasise whenever his name is mentioned. When you find evidence for horses and swords of steel in ancient America let me know.

[_Inconceivable]

Mr. Peterson,

Just wanted to apologize for that post I made the other day suggesting that you were introducing anti-mormon information in your posts. I understand that you and other apologists need to read various things which some might consider antimormon in your work to resolve conflicting information regarding the church.

Dr. Peterson is like one cut above the very elect. He can handle it. He's like the Chuck Norris of Mormonism.



It's a High Priest like Elder Peterson who can dive into the belly of the beast, observe and report so that innocent TBM's will never have to venture for themselves and perchance loose their soul.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I read this board to see the latest apologetic approaches taken by LDS, none IMHO convince me to do a Don Bradley. I give a sliver of time to this and the other board. There is just so much to learn.

It puzzles and amuses me to see some people assuming that message boards represent the essence of Mormon apologetics (to the extent that, when I withdrew from active participation on MADB, several here suggested that that signified my withdrawal from apologetics altogether rather than my intention to stop wasting time on pointless peripheral nonsense.)

Bill Hamblin posts very occasionally on message boards. Greg Smith and Matt Roper have done it a handful of times. John Gee used to do so, a bit, but hasn't in many months. I used to participate in message board conversations [sic] both here and on MADB, but withdrew from "debating" on this board more than a year ago (I think) and bagged active involvement in MADB back in October or thereabouts. Jack Welch, Lou Midgley, George Mitton, Blake Ostler, John Tvedtnes, Noel Reynolds, Don Parry, Michael Rhodes, David Seely, Andrew Skinner, Gerald Bradford, John Sorenson, Paul Hoskisson, John Clark, and other central participants in the current apologetic scene have -- to the best of my knowledge -- never posted on any message board. I'm quite confident, in fact, that most of them have never heard of either MDB or MADB.

However, now that I've undertaken to announce new publications, etc., on MDB and MADB, those who focus entirely on message boards will have the chance to gain at least some idea of the much larger and much more significant "apologetic" world beyond them.

(You're welcome!)


.

[_Ray A]

Lou Midgley, ....Blake Ostler,

It depends on whether you consider the FAIR Blog a "message board", because Lou Midgley posted frequently there at one time (with yours truly). Ostler has posted on MBs, including this extensive debate on Times and Seasons on Updating the Expansion Theory, where he expresses some rather "unorthodox" views (I believe he's also registered at MAD but posted minimally there).

[_cinepro]

I expect that you would be fascinated.

Merry Christmas!

.

I'm quite serious.

Whenever the issue of Noah's flood comes up, there are many LDS who argue that the nature of the Biblical story (and its authors) somehow leads to a logically "regional" interpretation of the flood story.

Yet Donald Parry, in spite of his extensive knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, has gone on record as strongly supporting the global flood theory and denouncing any allegorical or regional interpretations.

It's one thing to argue for the global flood in a devotional publication like the Ensign, but quite another to argue for it in a scholarly publication like "Studies in the Bible and Antiquity". If supporters of a global flood hope to maintain that belief in spite of the flood of evidence against it, such articles would probably be extremely helpful to the global-flood believers, and enlightening to the doubters.

[_aussieguy55]

I suppose the whole gist of your presentation is to show that some LDS scholars are involved in some heavy duty Bible studies and should be listened to with respect. I could find the same in the CVs of many scholars both evangelical and mainline who are also involved in similiar studies. None of this seems to have changed the general publics views of Mormonism as Christian. In a recent survey among Protestant pastors only 27% considered Beck a christian while even Obama beat him with 47%. These Pastors have congregations, they preach sermons and have Bible classes. What are they learning about Mormonism in seminary. Do their librarys have copies of the publications you mentioned?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suppose the whole gist of your presentation is to show that some LDS scholars are involved in some heavy duty Bible studies and should be listened to with respect.

The whole "gist" of my "presentation" was to respond to your question, above, "Do any LDS scholars write books that could be used in a biblical studies class that has no reference to unique Mormon scriptures?"

Nothing more.

I could find the same in the CVs of many scholars both evangelical and mainline who are also involved in similiar studies.

Undoubtedly true.

None of this seems to have changed the general publics views of Mormonism as Christian.

I don't know anybody who expected that it would. In any event, I suspect that relatively few of the general public are reading the Revue de Qumran, "Discoveries in the Judaean Desert," or Current Research & Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In a recent survey among Protestant pastors only 27% considered Beck a christian while even Obama beat him with 47%. These Pastors have congregations, they preach sermons and have Bible classes. What are they learning about Mormonism in seminary.

Probably little or nothing.

Do their librarys have copies of the publications you mentioned?

If you're talking about solid academic seminaries, yes, they most likely do. If not, they probably don't.

[_MsJack]

I'm all for Mormon scholars participating in the wider field of biblical studies, but I'm not really sure what would be gained if we had Mormon scholars with the interfaith influence of someone like N. T. Wright, people who worked in biblical studies without tying their studies in to their Mormon faith. If they don't tie in things from their Mormon background, then the Mormon background isn't really doing anything other than bringing some greater visibility to the LDS church. Once they do start to tie their studies in with distinctly Mormon scriptures and doctrines (Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.), they'll largely lose the interest of non-LDS scholars and be writing for an LDS-only audience.

I think both of those options are still valid choices if Mormon scholars want them. I'm particularly interested in seeing them develop a Mormon wing of biblical scholarship. I often find myself wishing there were an easier way to look up the Mormon take on particular passages of the Bible from a scholarly viewpoint, a "Mormon Study Bible" or a series of commentaries on individual books. It isn't like evangelicalism where there have probably been at least three commentaries on a single book of the Bible published in the last decade. So I've been in favor of seeing a Mormon New Testament Commentary for some time now.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: In my moderatorial opinion, this thread took on a Terrestrial "feel" once the topic of David Wright's excommunication became the focus. To that end, all such posts have been moved to the Terrestrial Forum. You can view (and reply to them) at:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16169 ]

[_Daniel Peterson]

Good call.

Thanks.