moniemonie

He hasn't published anything yet on the BoA that I'm aware of. People are aware of him on the topic, simply because he has one of the best copies of the KEP available (something most LDS scholars do not have access to). Beyond that, he's no more a scholar than anyone else. Most of us are hoping that he will actually do a scholarly work, rather than a work up of why the BoA is a fraud. That's what he has done with his "scholarly" work on the Book of Mormon, and so has received lots of well-deserved criticism. No, his work is not peer reviewed. As it is, while FARMS is all peer reviewed, primarily from LDS peers, they are all scholars that are doing the reviewing. Jerald and Sandra Tanner are not actually trained Biblical or LDS scholars, but have been writing for many years anyway (on par with Brent). Jerald graduated from Salt Lake Trade Technical Institute in 1959, not exactly known for its in-depth Biblical or LDS research techniques. Dan Vogel has received some good reviews for some of his writings. The reality is, there are few that would actually make good peers outside the LDS Church scholars, right now. There just are not many scholars that have taken much interest in learning anything about the LDS Church in enough depth to really be a good peer reviewer. For example, Ritner is a well-respected Egyptologist, however he hasn't spent the time to know or understand all the ins and outs of Mormon antiquities, so it's easy for him to comment on the BoA papyri, but not on other issues that make it more complicated than the simple issue he claims it to be. There are many LDS scholars who are hoping Brent will seek to make a scholarly work, and allow them to help him peer review his book on the KEP. If he goes around them, there really isn't anyone outside the Church with the information concerning it to really review what he's working on. Unless all someone is looking for are a few people with names to pat him on the back and say, "atta boy!"

I agree, and mentioned that Isaiah 14 is specifically pointed at the King of Babylon. However, later interpretations strongly suggested that it was also understood to be Lucifer/Satan. And in modern prophecy, Joseph Smith also tied the two together. What Joseph Smith did, was a very common practice in ancient Israel that today we would perhaps call Midrashic interpretation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have several scrolls that comment and interpret Old Testament writings in connection to their generation, such as the Commentary on Habakkuk, where the Kittim are now the Greek/Romans.

You can scoff and mock all you want. But all it does is show your ignorance and your desire to not find what was really believed anciently. It is not my problem that Superman and other modern myths used ancient names. If you want to learn about the ancients, then study about them from the actual scholars, such as Dever and Barker, in the case of Old Testament and multiple gods in the divine council.