[Archaea]

I like many of these ideas.

This debate shoulders what I believe plagues most biblical Mormon scholars, a lack of credibility in the academic world.

IMHO, it seems most LDS scholars either commence doing something with FARMS which has such a low volume of scholarship or interest outside of LDS world to be almost meaningless, or to engage in plain apologetics for LDS faith.

Now, somebody will point to an exception, but in other fields, we have accomplished LDS scholars not engaged in apologetics. The best scholars which touch upon these subjects are Givens and Bushman, not biblical scholars per se, but a literary and an historical scholar.

We need LDS who research and write cutting edge stuff on textual criticism or on the Documentary Hypothesis with such skill and determination that the nonLDS scholars, the Germans and other Continentals take note, so that when their scholarship is turned to LDS issues, they have credibility.

It almost seems as if BY is challenging LDS scholars to be on the cutting edge, and as Henry Eyring argued to be on the side of truth, even if risk is involved. What too often happens, LDS scholars end up with no support and often lose faith instead of forging ahead.

These last two years I have refamiliarized myself with the quality of LDS scholarship in religious matters, and the quality is very disparate, some of it good, some of it horrible but almost none of it first rate. Why is that? It isn't true in other disciplines.