Biblically illiterate

[_RockSlider]

It's embarrassing how weak Mormonism is in Biblical scholarship. Kwaku gets his ass handed to him because of our Lay leadership and teachers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XbJ3954HW8

[Guest]

There is a reason why Mormon's avoid Biblical scholarship, why it isn't taught in any of the Mormon owned universities, or mentioned in any correlated text produced by the church. It's because it is a bigger threat to fundamental Mormon theology (those who hold that literal history is found in the Book of Mormon) than physical sciences such as archeology or DNA research.

If Abraham is only a myth, all of literal historical Mormonism fails.
If the historical Jesus was only an apocalyptic prophet who was convinced the Kingdom of God was going to be established on earth within his or his disciples' life time, then there is no "church organization" to restore, or no priesthood authority to bring back.

There are so many more problems Biblical scholarship creates for Mormons.

[_Symmachus]

I can take only about two minutes of this. It's just too boring for me, and I really can't summon up interest in arguments about theology in general (especially in a room with a sign claiming "babies are murdered here" on one side and a Calvin in sunglasses on the other). It's a little bit like arguing about what's in the fridge, and there's only one way to settle such an argument. Since one can't open the fridge in this case, it seems like a real waste of time to me. And Rockslider is right about the Biblical illiteracy, though I think evangelicals are just as ignorant because the culture at large is quite illiterate. Each of them knows not what the Bible says but they want it to say.

For the two minutes I saw, though, I was impressed by Kwaku's demeanor and the tenor of the discussion. A sterling contrast with the smug assholes among the old FARMSians.

[_huckelberry]

There is a reason why Mormon's avoid Biblical scholarship, why it isn't taught in any of the Mormon owned universities, or mention in any correlated text produced by the church. because it is a bigger threat to fundamental Mormon theology (those who hold a literal history of the Book of Mormon) than physical sciences such as archeology or DNA research.

If Abraham is only a myth, all of literal historical Mormonism fails.
If the historical Jesus was only an apocalyptic prophet who was convinced the Kingdom of God was going to be established on earth within his or his disciples' life time, then there is no "church organization" to restore, or no priesthood authority to bring back.

There are so many more problems Biblical scholarship creates for Mormons.

Fence Sitter,
I could only get a short distance in the linked debate agreeing with Symmachus about its character. An irony is that both sides were arguing from pretty fundamentalist points of view equally undermined by the kind of scholarship you reference. Mormon apologetics has used pieces of those studies (the divine council in cultural context) to support lds multigod views. From what I have seen the fit is poor but White was content to say that it is bad to use that liberal scholarship .

I think Mormon teaching may shy from the scholarship for much the same reason other churches do. It introduces ambiguity and uncertainty. Nothing demonstrates Abraham is a myth but space is opened to show that is a clear possibility. Jesus as apocalyptic prophet is a widespread view but is not interpreted the same by every scholar.

[Guest]

-

[_huckelberry]

I listened to the debate. Actually, neither side is arguing from a fundamentalist point of view.

Kwaku cites lots of liberal biblical scholarship and claims that it agrees with Mormon theology. For the most part it does not and where it does seem to match it does so in only the most superficial of ways. This absolves Kwaku of the claims of fundamentalism.

White and co in this video mostly try and nail down what Kwaku believes and point out that he is misusing the biblical scholarship. In other videos White and co will cite conservative biblical scholarship to argue for broadly Reformed positions which probably does look fundamentalist to the average Mormon. However, Reformed have historically distanced themselves from fundamentalists for a whole range of reasons.

I get that people tend to call anyone to the right of them "fundamentalist" and anyone to the left of them "crazy", and I'm guessing that this was use of "fundamentalist" you were going with here.

I have no clue as to what definition of fundamentalist you are using. Where has this delineation been made and by what authority? Dictionary approach is simpler. White criticized his Fuller education as corrupting the authority of scripture. Fuller is an Evangelical institution so I thought fundamentalist an apt category loosely defined.

Why did you drop that snide comment on me about thinking anyone to the left of me being crazy?

You might note that you agreed with the only comment I made about the specifics of the debate.