Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

There is s*** loads of apologia being written for many different sacred texts.

I have purposefully left the Bible and the Koran and other eastern texts out of this discussion knowing that this is the case.

You have been given examples of such with Urantia.

You've apparently read exegetical works/books that have been written in support rather than against The Urantia Book. Would you name just one that I might use as a resource in the same way I can use Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon" to understand the underlying complexity/cohesiveness of the narrative?

The Bible, Koran, and other eastern texts will have those doing similar if you are really interested and do you own work.

I know. I'm more interested in the modern 'scriptures' that have come about...competing in a sense...with the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The 19th century saw many channeled texts, like the Oahspe, The Book of Dzyan and a growing number of spiritualist and theosophist works. There are few academics who treat them as authentic.

Would you really expect anything else?

They're modern apocrypha, and so is the Book of Mormon.

Would you agree that the the apologetics and the criticisms written in regards to the Book of Mormon are of a voluminous nature in comparison with what has been written about some of these other works?

Don't you think that academics are going to have their own prejudices as they approach ANY work that purports to have come about through some channeled means?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

This thread is a joke.

I've been enjoying the conversation. More with some than others.

Time to take a break for a while though...

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

The 19th century saw many channeled texts, like the Oahspe, The Book of Dzyan and a growing number of spiritualist and theosophist works. There are few academics who treat them as authentic.

Would you really expect anything else?

They're modern apocrypha, and so is the Book of Mormon.

Would you agree that the the apologetics and the criticisms written in regards to the Book of Mormon are of a voluminous nature in comparison with what has been written about some of these other works?

Don't you think that academics are going to have their own prejudices as they approach ANY work that purports to have come about through some channeled means?

Regards,
MG

I trust academics more than I trust apologists.

You're doing your special pleading again. No, I would not agree. You're asking leading questions, framed the way you want.

Show me where Philip Jenkins was speaking out of prejudice when he trounced Bill Hamblin. Let's see you do some research and reading for a change.

[_Goya]

There is s*** loads of apologia being written for many different sacred texts.

I have purposefully left the Bible and the Koran and other eastern texts out of this discussion knowing that this is the case.

What you’re saying is that there are a whole bunch of religions. Some of them have a lot more written about them than Mormonism—and some of them have less written about them than Mormonism. Your point is that it’s amazing that Mormonism has more written about it than those religions that have less written about them.

[_Goya]

I know. I'm more interested in the modern 'scriptures' that have come about...competing in a sense...with the Book of Mormon.

Then look at Bahá'í.

[_Maksutov]

I know. I'm more interested in the modern 'scriptures' that have come about...competing in a sense...with the Book of Mormon.

Then look at Bahá'í.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1 ... literature

http://www.bahai.org/library/

I'm sure MG will want to study these.

[_mentalgymnast]

Show me where Philip Jenkins was speaking out of prejudice when he trounced Bill Hamblin. Let's see you do some research and reading for a change.

I followed each 'back and forth' while it was going on. It was over on Patheos wasn't it? Don't ask me to remember much of what I read.

Everyone is biased and/or prejudiced.

http://archive.boston.com/news/science/ ... /blog.html

Prejudice is the process of making decision or judging something with a premature mind and making your own facts instead of knowing the real truth about a person or a thing. Bias can be referred to as a process where you prefer one thing over another thing. Prejudice is the word used to refer to something that you hate completely. Bias can be referred to as a prejudice in some specific sense. This is the priority that you feel about one thing as compared to other.

You are saying that Philip Jenkins isn't either one or both?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You're asking leading questions, framed the way you want.

I think we all may do this to some extent or another. Do you have a problem with that? If a question leads you in a direction you don't feel like you want to go...change the direction. My guess is that you are probably already doing that.

Then I have to steer you back.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

There is s*** loads of apologia being written for many different sacred texts.

I have purposefully left the Bible and the Koran and other eastern texts out of this discussion knowing that this is the case.

That's a lot of religions both old and new.

You've apparently read exegetical works/books that have been written in support rather than against The Urantia Book. Would you name just one that I might use as a resource in the same way I can use Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon" to understand the underlying complexity/cohesiveness of the narrative?

You have been given examples in this thread. You will always find some way to say it's not quite like how Hardy did it. Don't see any point. Most text don't make the objective claims the Book of Mormon makes. Huge difference you are ignoring still.

I know. I'm more interested in the modern 'scriptures' that have come about...competing in a sense...with the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

Competing in what sense that has a real point? Hubbard's writing are considered sacred text. Why does it need apologists with some academic background defending them? I'm guessing they have them, but why does it matter? His writings from what I know are very subjective and not testable so they don't really need the kind of apologia the Book of Mormon needs. Joseph's Book of Moses does not need that kind of apologia because it's claims are not very objective even though it is saying Joseph received Moses account. It's problems are not so much with the text then the evidence suggesting Moses was not a real person.

The Book of Abraham needs more apologia because of Joseph's claims to be able to translate Egyptian and the fact we have his attempted translations of specific Egyptian text we have today. While the text is problematic it is far more subjective as are the apologia saying it is ancient. What good evidence do we have that thetons do not really exist that Scientology needs to defend against, using some of their members who have academic standing?