Question: Why do mopologists ignore the Bible so much?

[_bcspace]

Jesus said the dead are single.

Let me know when you are able to show it.

[_Buffalo]

Jesus said the dead are single.

Let me know when you are able to show it.

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." - Jesus H. Christ

Jesus was anti-family, and so were most early Christian thinkers. That doesn't fit in with the eternal marriage doctrine.

For what its worth, on this issue I side with the Mormons and against Jesus.

[_bcspace]

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30

"They" refers to the brothers in the example. Check your mss. The KJV has it correct. Your version inserts man-made doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30

"They" refers to the brothers in the example. Check your mss. The KJV has it correct. Your version inserts man-made doctrine.

My version agrees with the totality of early Christian doctrine, which was anti-marriage and anti-family.

[_bcspace]

My version agrees with the totality of early Christian doctrine, which was anti-marriage and anti-family.

Such was the apostate heretical doctrine yes. But the early Christians felt much differently. For example:

Clement of Alexandria felt that marriage "was good practice for life as a god."
Wagner, After the Apostles, 180.

A summary of Clement's thought:

Clement insists that marriage and procreation are an intrinsic and positive part of God's plan for the human race. He frequently cites Gen. 1:28 ("Increase and multiply") and regards human procreation as an act of co-creation with God: "In this way the human being becomes the image of God, by cooperating in the creation of another human being" . . . . Indeed, Clement is even capable of regarding marriage as, in some respects, superior to celibacy. The celibate who is concerned only for his salvation is "in most respects untried." By contrast, the married man who must devote himself to the administration of a household is a more faithful reflection of God's own providential care.
David G. Hunter, Marriage in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 15; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:12:70; Instructor 2:10:83. The Clementine Homilies also advance marriage as the ideal, See Clementine Homilies 3:68, in ANF 8:250.

But all this is avoision on your part. You've now admitted that your version of the Bible was changed to reflect man-made doctrine. Therefore, you have also admitted that the KJV is correct; that "they" does not refer to all the dead, but the participants in the parable.

[_the narrator]

Returning to the OP, one challenge that contemporary LDS scholars have with discussion the Bible is that much of contemporary Biblical criticism is incompatible with traditional LDS teaching (and traditional Christian teachings) about the Bible. From what I have seen, most LDS responses to modern Biblical scholarship takes the form of testimonial ("I believe differently") than critical scholarly responses. (Example). It is for this reason that most LDS scholarship in this area outside of Mormonism focuses instead on extra-canonical texts (such as the DSS, pseudepigraphical texts, etc).

Not too long ago, I heard Bob Millet lament that there have been no LDS scholars that have done any major work on the New Testament outside of Mormonism. I think it is certainly possible, and there is a rising generation of LDS scholars who may do so. However, it seems that in order for LDS scholars to engage the Bible with other non-LDS (and non-evangelical) scholars there will have to be a willingness to accept many of the conclusion drawn from contemporary Biblical scholarship--including the unlikely authorship of the Gospels by those who actually witnessed the events, the unlikely historicity of many of the Gospel accounts (especially the birth and infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew), the lack of a corporate Christian church in the first century after Christ, the dubitable traditional authorship of most of the New Testament epistles (besides a handful of Pauline epistles), including Revelation, etc. Similar challenges arise with LDS (and evangelical) scholars with the Old Testament, such as the doubtful historicity of the pre-exilic accounts.

In some ways, LDS scholars have embraced contemporary Biblical scholarship. For example, many have latched onto scholarship that has cast doubt on ontological monotheism and textual inerrancy. However, when Biblical scholarship contradicts claims made in LDS scripture, new challenges arise--for example, how should Mormons understand the Sermon on the Mount's appearance in the Book of Mormon, when Jesus most likely did not give this sermon as it appears in Matthew?

[_Buffalo]

My version agrees with the totality of early Christian doctrine, which was anti-marriage and anti-family.

Such was the apostate heretical doctrine yes. But the early Christians felt much differently. For example:

Clement of Alexandria felt that marriage "was good practice for life as a god."
Wagner, After the Apostles, 180.

A summary of Clement's thought:

Clement insists that marriage and procreation are an intrinsic and positive part of God's plan for the human race. He frequently cites Gen. 1:28 ("Increase and multiply") and regards human procreation as an act of co-creation with God: "In this way the human being becomes the image of God, by cooperating in the creation of another human being" . . . . Indeed, Clement is even capable of regarding marriage as, in some respects, superior to celibacy. The celibate who is concerned only for his salvation is "in most respects untried." By contrast, the married man who must devote himself to the administration of a household is a more faithful reflection of God's own providential care.
David G. Hunter, Marriage in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 15; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:12:70; Instructor 2:10:83. The Clementine Homilies also advance marriage as the ideal, See Clementine Homilies 3:68, in ANF 8:250.

But all this is avoision on your part. You've now admitted that your version of the Bible was changed to reflect man-made doctrine. Therefore, you have also admitted that the KJV is correct; that "they" does not refer to all the dead, but the participants in the parable.

Jesus taught people to abandon their families, just as he himself did. Paul was explicitly anti-marriage in his letters. The original Christians were anti-marriage, anti-family. By definition, being pro-family makes you a heretic.

[_Fifth Columnist]

Returning to the OP, one challenge that contemporary LDS scholars have with discussion the Bible is that much of contemporary Biblical criticism is incompatible with traditional LDS teaching (and traditional Christian teachings) about the Bible. From what I have seen, most LDS responses to modern Biblical scholarship takes the form of testimonial ("I believe differently") than critical scholarly responses.

I get the feeling that this is beginning to change. It seems that the young LDS scriptural scholars seem to be willing to accept contemporary biblical scholarship (David Bokovoy and Dan McClellan for example). As the old guard slowly passes away, I think this new group will introduce a whole new paradigm to Mormon biblical scholarship. The big question is whether the GAs will try to step in and stop any change.

[_bcspace]

Jesus taught people to abandon their families, just as he himself did. Paul was explicitly anti-marriage in his letters. The original Christians were anti-marriage, anti-family. By definition, being pro-family makes you a heretic.

Avoision. Look at the text, not the changes you made to it.

[_the narrator]

Jesus taught people to abandon their families, just as he himself did. Paul was explicitly anti-marriage in his letters. The original Christians were anti-marriage, anti-family. By definition, being pro-family makes you a heretic.

Jesus wasn't anti-family. Rather his discussion of abandoning families was in light of the Jewish understanding that by turning away from one's Jewish upbringing one was rejecting one's family.

Paul, on the other hand, believed that the second coming and millennium was imminent. Since Jesus was coming right around the corner, what was of utmost importance was the warning others--familial relationships would get in the way of the work. Paul, like all who prophesied about the imminent millennium/end (which was most of them), was wrong.

Similarly, the apostolic charge for contemporary LDS apostles (at least for Hunter) included the charge that their apostolic calling came before everything else in their life--including wife and family.