Question: Why do mopologists ignore the Bible so much?

[_Beavis Christ]

Numerous times, Dan Peterson and other mopologists who have actual academic credentials (that number is very small) have stated that they do not present papers regarding Book of Mormon history on account of the fact that the larger academic world does not given any credence to the idea that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.

That certainly is true, however, Mormonism makes a number of very sweeping claims about being the "original" gospel of Jesus yet this viewpoint is not at all supported by the facts.

Perhaps I've missed their citations, but I find it telling that I do not see LDS academics attempting to buttress Mormon claims about the Bible in academia. One would assume that since everyone grants that Jews actually existed and that Christianity has an actual history, this would clear the way for Mormon scriptorians to blaze into New Testament and Old Testament academia.

I wonder if Peterson or some other mopologist could answer why we do not seem much output from Mormons when it comes to the Bible.

[_Obiwan]

You don't make any sense.... What are you really trying to ask? That there aren't a "lot/any" top Biblical scholars in the Church who degrade LDS theology?

1. Mormons having "actual academic credentials" is not even close to as "small" as you think. Nearly every single one of us are college educated, and the more educated we are the more faithful we tend to be, compared to other Faiths, where the more educated they are the more they tend to leave their Faiths.

2. You misrepresent LDS scholarship also. We do scholarship on everything be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

3. In YOUR OPINION Mormonism is "not supported by the facts" but from our view, including mine as a convert to the Church from the various religions out there, who read the Bible for myself and saw clearly that all these religions didn't actually fit the book, and then coming upon Mormonism and seeing that this was the ONLY religion that actually fit what the book in full said and taught, Mormonism most certainly IS "supported by the facts".

4. Mormon claims ARE Biblical, which is why there is no need to "buttrese" any LDS theology.....

5. People who have an interest in the Biblical sciences certainly pursue and publish on such. Of course, we are a unique religion that has more than just the Bible to deal with and there are already plenty of people publishing on the Bible, so those who don't get into the Biblical sciences often simply study them and quote them as needed.

6. We output given our size as much as possible.

7. For someone actually wishing "respectful discussion", it's not generally appropriate to "name call" when there is no call to, such as your using the word "mopologist". There is no such word, and it's an intentional bigoted slam. If you want respect, remove your bigotry. Thank you.

p.s. I would recommend this great article on what the Bible "actually" teaches on Prophets.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

[_Quasimodo]

You don't make any sense.... What are you really trying to ask? That there aren't a "lot/any" top Biblical scholars in the Church who degrade LDS theology?

You're making good sense Beavis. Mormons do tend to avoid the Bible.

1. Mormons having "actual academic credentials" is not even close to as "small" as you think. Nearly every single one of us are college educated, and the more educated we are the more faithful we tend to be, compared to other Faiths, where the more educated they are the more they tend to leave their Faiths.

A BYU education, by definition, is going to be biased. No need to take them too seriously.

2. You misrepresent LDS scholarship also. We do scholarship on everything be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Only in a biased and adolescent way.

3. In YOUR OPINION Mormonism is "not supported by the facts" but from our view, including mine as a convert to the Church from the various religions out there, who read the Bible for myself and saw clearly that all these religions didn't actually fit the book, and then coming upon Mormonism and seeing that this was the ONLY religion that actually fit what the book in full said and taught, Mormonism most certainly IS "supported by the facts".

I'm still amazed that anyone could convert to the LDS.

4. Mormon claims ARE Biblical, which is why there is no need to "buttrese" any LDS theology.....

Mormon claims are shaky, at best. Depending on the manipulations of J. Smith is a little near sighted.

5. People who have an interest in the Biblical sciences certainly pursue and publish on such. Of course, we are a unique religion that has more than just the Bible to deal with and there are already plenty of people publishing on the Bible, so those who don't get into the Biblical sciences often simply study them and quote them as needed.

This, of course, is sophism.

6. We output given our size as much as possible.

7. For someone actually wishing "respectful discussion", it's not generally appropriate to "name call" when there is no call to, such as your using the word "mopologist". There is no such word, and it's an intentional bigoted slam. If you want respect, remove your bigotry. Thank you.

p.s. I would recommend this great article on what the Bible "actually" teaches on Prophets.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

[_Daniel Peterson]

We have a larger canon than other Western Christians, and, since we can't rely on them to study our unique documents, we have to do it. But every hour spent on the Book of Mormon is an hour that can't be devoted to the Bible.

Still, I don't agree that Mormons ignore the Bible. I didn't study Hebrew and Greek in order to do so. I'm not taking a tour group to Israel this April in order to do so. I won't be ignoring the Bible when I lecture during a travels-of-Paul-themed cruise in May. I don't ignore it every Sunday when I teach the Gospel Doctrine class.

The Maxwell Institute wasn't ignoring the Bible when it launched its annual journal Studies in the Bible and Antiquity.

S. Kent Brown, Andrew Skinner, Thomas Wayment, Eric Huntsman, Donald Parry, Frank Judd, Dana Pike, David Seely, Gaye Strathearn, William Hamblin, John Welch, David Bokovoy, Stephen Ricks, and other such LDS scholars have written and published extensively on the Bible.

[_Joseph]

daniel says: "But every hour spent on the Book of Mormon is an hour that can't be devoted to the Bible."
*******************************

Trying to find Nephite wheat storage grainaries, horses, silk, steel swords and cureloms takes up a lot of time.

[_Beavis Christ]

Still, I don't agree that Mormons ignore the Bible. I didn't study Hebrew and Greek in order to do so. I'm not taking a tour group to Israel this April in order to do so. I won't be ignoring the Bible when I lecture during a travels-of-Paul-themed cruise in May. I don't ignore it every Sunday when I teach the Gospel Doctrine class.

The Maxwell Institute wasn't ignoring the Bible when it launched its annual journal Studies in the Bible and Antiquity.

S. Kent Brown, Andrew Skinner, Thomas Wayment, Eric Huntsman, Donald Parry, Frank Judd, Dana Pike, David Seely, Gaye Strathearn, William Hamblin, John Welch, David Bokovoy, Stephen Ricks, and other such LDS scholars have written and published extensively on the Bible.

Thank you for the reply. To your knowledge have any of the above individuals presented papers at regular academic conferences regarding specific claims about the Bible made by Mormon doctrine?

I am not paid to read this stuff so I don't keep up with it like you can have the time to. I ask this because you have stated previously that part of the reason there are not more presentations at conferences not sponsored by BYU by believing Mormons on truth claims of the Book of Mormon is that non-Mormons are put off by the angel and gold plates narrative and therefore are uninterested in material about it. It would seem that the non-supernatural provenance of the biblical texts means that the Bible does not present that obstacle to believing Mormon academics.

I am fascinated by the Bible as it relates to Mormonism because it seems that modern textual criticism and the increasing knowledge about Baal and the origins of the Jewish faith is perhaps an even greater problem for Mormonism than it is for non-Mormon Christianity or Judaism. Given that we know that Elohim in the earlier historical sense was not one God but actually the children of the God El, this raises some interesting possibilities for specifically Mormon theories. The syncretic evolution of Yahweh and the figure of Asherah also present some dilemmas for Mormonism.

Additionally, the idea of Jesus having actually revealed Mormonism rather than some sort of apocalyptic form of Judaism is also problematic in my viewpoint and I would like to see some evidence from your side that such practices as temple marriage existed before Masonry, given the admitted similarities that that ordinance has to certain of the Masonic rites which we know do not date back to Solomon's Temple.

This is but one issue that would be interesting to see explored of Mormon claims about the Bible. By and large, Mormon critics do not focus on the Bible much either given the largeness of the Mormon canon and also due to the fact that some of them believe in the Bible as an inerrant document.

If you, or anyone from the believing side has links to some essays about some of the so-called new criticism of the Bible as it relates to Mormonism, I would love to see them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you for the reply. To your knowledge have any of the above individuals presented papers at regular academic conferences regarding specific claims about the Bible made by Mormon doctrine?

Yes. There is, for example, a regular Mormon section at the annual national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.

I am not paid to read this stuff

Nor am I.

I make my living as an Islamicist. The other stuff I do on my own time and on my own nickel.

I am fascinated by the Bible as it relates to Mormonism because it seems that modern textual criticism and the increasing knowledge about Baal and the origins of the Jewish faith is perhaps an even greater problem for Mormonism than it is for non-Mormon Christianity or Judaism. Given that we know that Elohim in the earlier historical sense was not one God but actually the children of the God El, this raises some interesting possibilities for specifically Mormon theories. The syncretic evolution of Yahweh and the figure of Asherah also present some dilemmas for Mormonism.

I've actually published substantial articles on every one of those subjects. I think modern biblical scholarship offers interesting opportunities for Latter-day Saints.

Additionally, the idea of Jesus having actually revealed Mormonism rather than some sort of apocalyptic form of Judaism is also problematic in my viewpoint and I would like to see some evidence from your side that such practices as temple marriage existed before Masonry, given the admitted similarities that that ordinance has to certain of the Masonic rites which we know do not date back to Solomon's Temple.

There is a considerable body of Mormon scholarship on the temple in antiquity, including at least three books published by non-LDS publishers in New York and London.

If you, or anyone from the believing side has links to some essays about some of the so-called new criticism of the Bible as it relates to Mormonism, I would love to see them.

Here, for starters are links to three articles by me:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... &chapid=94

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... hapid=1112

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=258

Whether you agree with my arguments or not, I think you'll find that I'm anything but intimidated by contemporary biblical scholarship. Rather, I find it exhilarating in many respects.

You might also find interesting books on the ancient temple by William Hamblin and David Seely and by John Lundquist, and on the Sermon on the Mount by John W. Welch

[_Buffalo]

daniel says: "But every hour spent on the Book of Mormon is an hour that can't be devoted to the Bible."
*******************************

Trying to find Nephite wheat storage grainaries, horses, silk, steel swords and cureloms takes up a lot of time.

Curelom found!

[_Milesius]

I would prefer it if Mormon apologists ignored the Bible because they invariably get it wrong when they write about it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Invariably.

For example, if I say that the Sermon on the Mount occurs in the gospel of Matthew, anybody looking on will instantly know that it doesn't.

Or if I say that Saul of Tarsus was converted on the road to Damascus, it's a certainty that his conversion occurred on the road to someplace else -- e.g., Omaha, or Las Cruces.