I’ve noticed a curious pattern in the way some Latter-day Saint apologists engage with the Bible. When it comes to the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Bible—many are quick to embrace the conclusions of the documentary hypothesis or historical-critical methods. They seem more than comfortable suggesting that Moses didn’t write the Torah, that Deuteronomy was invented by King Josiah, Genesis, or that much of the early Old Testament is a composite of divergent sources.

This is exemplified by the fascination–bordering on obsession–that some LDS thinkers have with the theories of British scholar Margaret Barker. This conversation between Jonah Barnes and Jacob Hansen also exemplifies this spirit.

Yet when similar scholarly skepticism is applied to the Book of Isaiah—particularly the theory that chapters 40–66 were written by a second (or even third) author after Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem—the tone abruptly shifts. Faced with the fact that Book of Mormon characters quote and comment on passages like Isaiah 53 (attributed by many scholars to “Deutero-Isaiah”), these same apologists become markedly conservative, defending the unity of Isaiah with vigor. For instance, contrast the numerous pages on FAIR’s website defending Isiah’s authorship with this lukewarm page addressing the documentary hypothesis.

This reveals a striking inconsistency. LDS apologists are eager to critique the Bible where it raises no problems for Restoration scripture—but they only defend it where necessary to protect Restoration claims.

This seems extremely short sighted. Many LDS apologists seem eager to emphasize the Bible’s supposed weaknesses while forgetting that their own scriptures and truth claims are built on that very foundation. They fail to realize that by critiquing the Bible they are cutting the branch they are sitting on.

The Book of Mormon leans heavily on the Bible. Its theology, terminology, and prophetic patterns are drawn from biblical categories. Isaiah, Malachi, Genesis, and Matthew are quoted or paraphrased repeatedly. For instance, Nephi relies heavily on a literal Exodus and literal conquest of Canaan when he preaches to his rebelious brothers throughout 1 Nephi. And the story of the Jaredites begins at the Tower of Babel. If those books and stories are unreliable, late, or theologically fictionalized, then the Book of Mormon’s literary and doctrinal scaffolding collapses with them.

Even more fundamentally, LDS claims about priesthood, prophecy, apostasy, and restoration all presume a real, trustworthy biblical past. If Adam, Abraham, Moses, or Elijah are literary constructs or historically inaccessible, what exactly has been restored? And what of claims like ordination by John the Baptist, the appearance of Moses or Elijah at the Kirtland Temple, or the future gathering of Adam and his posterity.

If you tell people the Bible is mostly broken, don’t be surprised when they throw out the parts you’re trying to build on too. Biblical skepticism is a cancer that will not stop spreading.

Modern LDS leaders, to their credit, have not generally taken this skeptical posture. General Authorities often speak of the Bible with deep reverence and confidence.

For instance, Elder M. Russell Ballard called on members and “young people especially” to “not discount or devalue the Holy Bible,” emphsizing that it is a “sacred, holy record” and “the bedrock of all christianity” and critiquing the belief that “one part” of the LDS canon like the Book of Mormon “is more important or more true than the other parts”

So here is my plea to LDS apologists: follow your prophets. Be as engaged in defending the rest of the Bible as you are in defending Isaiah or the Book of Mormon. Because when you undermine the Bible’s integrity in Genesis and Deuteronomy but defend it in Isaiah, you are cutting off the very branch you’re sitting on.

Just as Elder Ballard said, the Bible is not a threat to faith in Christ. It is the bedrock and foundation of it. We can embrace the Bible as Jesus did: relying on it to rebuff Satan, declaring to the Pharisees that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). and promising that “not one jot or one tittle” will pass away unfulfiled (Matthew 5:18). We can study the Bible without avoiding textual complexity or historical nuance, but with a conviction that it is inspired and that God has faithfully spoken through it.

Some skeptical voices may attack the Bible based on a “scholarly consensus.” But the truth is, recent decades have brought remarkable developments in biblical scholarship that support its credibility. Gary Habermas’s study of the resurrection demonstrates strong historical consensus around key claims in the Gospels. Richard Bauckham has shown how the names used in the Gospels reflect first-century Palestinian patterns, supporting their eyewitness nature. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed how remarkably well the biblical texts were preserved over centuries.

We can still disagree on matters of interpretation, and on whether the Bible is infallaible in every instance. But please stop attacking the Bible. The Book of Mormon, and the entire Restoration claim, doesn’t just stand next to the Bible. It leans on it. Heavily.

Don’t saw off the branch you’re sitting on.

Instead, take up the task of defending the Bible’s coherence, beauty, and historical integrity. Not to win a debate. But to honor the story that reveals the true and living God, the God who speaks, and who has spoken fully in His Son.