Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_grindael]

“F” Friberg.

Oh no! Don't use the "F" word, Mentalcase will rat you out.

[_canpakes]

MG, I will capture some statements from a few different posts below, since this thread has been moving pretty quickly relative to my own chance to respond.

I see the conflict [Book of Mormon dependency on certain Biblical stories being literal truth]and don't have a good resolution for that conflict within the traditional/orthodox LDS paradigm and/or way of thinking.

OK. 'Within the LDS paradigm'... I suppose that it would be like jumping into your pool for a swim, then trying to find a dry spot within the water to stand for a moment.

Your answer leaves open the possibility that you either don't believe or don't want to believe (but need to in order to support your faith otherwise) in the Tower of Babel story, as example. You're leaving me to guess the answer to that so I'm going to stick with this conclusion.

Any number of competent authors could make as complex an origin theory as anyone and add layers of non-original 'complexity' to the Book of Mormon, given the time.

Could you flesh this out a bit more? I'd like to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here.

To rephrase, a competent author can always add detail from his own pen and imagination/interpretation to an existing narrative in order to flesh it out, establish links or add 'complexity' for the purpose of furthering the claim of authenticity or historicity. In other words, 'filling in the gaps', more or less. I suspect that some material by Givens or Hardy might be like this, in the sense that either author may manufacture assumptions and then use them to bring the reader to certain conclusions... based on information that is not actually and plainly included in the Book of Mormon to begin with.

The first book I read after a period of questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity to the point of believing like many here was Terryl Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon". It's been a number of years now since I read it. It was sort of a game changer for me in the sense that after reading his book I took the Book of Mormon off the shelf and put it on the table again and spent more time in between the covers of the Book of Mormon instead of outside of the covers looking for more 'dirt'.

An interesting choice of words. I think that some folks judge the historicity of the Book of Mormon strictly based upon a lack of 'dirt', so to speak - if 'dirt' in that case means the physical evidence that would have been left in its wake were it to be historical. This is opposed to the other kind of 'dirt' that I'd suppose refers to the transgressions of its author ('translator'). Myself, I don't tend to judge the chance of the Book's historicity based on Joseph Smith's personal-life shenanigans, whatever they might be. Rather, I've formed a conclusion based upon what has been physically discovered that supports the story, given the scope presented in the Book.

And then there's the other half of the equation:

Although it wasn't as if I then ignored the issues, it's just that I looked at the Book of Mormon with 'fresh eyes' and with a new understanding that I didn't have before. Since then, the other works from Skousen, Hardy, and Brant Gardner have added to that repertoire of books that keep my eyes open to the possibilities of modern day scripture/revelation/restoration/belief in Christ/God, etc.

I understand this thought. This is a different matter than historicity; here you finish out your comment with reference to spirituality and faith. I could expect that someone could find spiritual meaning within the Book of Mormon, especially if they were grounded in a basic Christian value system and familiar with the Christ story to begin with, given the Book of Mormon's heavy dependency on the Bible to establish its own narrative. But tweezing out the faith/spirituality element is not the same exercise as establishing historicity, and the presence of a spiritual component does not assert a historical origin, or vice versa. Would you agree?

... may I ask you if you have read Grant Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon" all the way through? To the extent of figuratively and/or literally underlining points of interest, etc.?

No, I have not. As you may have noticed from the frequency of my responses within this thread and elsewhere, the usual daily schedule doesn't leave much time for discretionary activities, lol... as well, we have a 'new edition' joining our small family within a few weeks so expenditures are committed to other things. : ) If I had access to a copy I would read it (time permitting) but I won't commit funds to the purchase of the book at this time. I'll readily admit to a bias about the content and wonder if Hardy's claims depend upon liberal additions to the story or manufacture of suppositions that are subsequently used to draw specific and planned conclusions. If that's the methodology (as opposed to some actual hard evidence) then I'll be disappointed unless Hardy seeks only to highlight spiritual content as opposed to arguing for historicity with that approach.

Here's the thing. How many of these modern 'invented' and/or channeled scriptures testify and teach of Jesus Christ? Jesus is mentioned in the Course of Miracles...but like I mentioned earlier, it is a very 'fuzzy' Jesus that really doesn't seem to make any sense. At least it didn't to me as I read sections of the 'Course'. Hubbard's writings? Others? The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It has connections with the Jesus of the Bible. It's narrative deals with 'the gospel' of Christ. It follows a linear history of people either following Christ's teachings or not. It shows the results of sin. The atonement is there. It's not fuzzy. Anyone can pick it up and understand it as long as they can read.

So, I guess I am a bit biased. I have a bit of a prejudice. If I'm looking at modern scriptures produced in the last couple of centuries or so that claim to be 'true', I think I am going to go with the book that on its very cover says, "Another Testament of Christ". Now the reason for picking the scripture that testifies of Christ rather than these others that don't goes on and into more than "hey, but that's the tradition that you are familiar with so of course you're going to side with Jesus Christ". There's a bit more to it than that. But suffice to say, I'm really not disposed to spend time with the Book of Urantia or Hubbard's works. Number one reason is that they don't testify of Christ and His mission and what we find in the Bible.

Actually, the Urantia Book may have more content than you assume with regard to Jesus. While I cannot vouch for it through personal reading of the contents, Wikipedia presents this tidbit:

"More than one third of the content of The Urantia Book is devoted to a narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus, and the Judeo-Christian tradition is given an importance exceeding any other. The book's teachings claim to be a clarification and expansion of Christian belief."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

[_Lemmie]

Of all the people on this board, you are the one person I really don't think I could sit down and do lunch with.

I should be thankful for small favors, I suppose. Of course you couldn't! You really hate it when your lying and disingenuousness are interrupted.

And of course you didn't respond to the question I asked you about your post on what you were looking for, you just bypassed that and lied (again) saying nothing had been said. Typical mentalgymnastics.

If you are not serious and your participation on the board is some sort of sport f*****g hobby or you are some apologist who is jacking with everybody, then I get it. But if you really are as sincere and serious as you say over and over again.......then bro how you roll ain't healthy and it's not nice.

I propose this as mentalgymnast's fonty motto and creed.

[_fetchface]

It might be well to converse when you're sober?

"Two Blue Moons deep" isn't much different from sober.

[_mentalgymnast]

It might be well to converse when you're sober?

"Two Blue Moons deep" isn't much different from sober.

How would I know?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...you didn't respond to the question I asked...

OK.

Regards,
M.G.

[_Lemmie]

It might be well to converse when you're sober?

"Two Blue Moons deep" isn't much different from sober.

But remember, to a Mormon, its the quintessential slippery slope, two blue moons and you're a fonty drunk! (two iced teas, though, and you're just a temple recommend tease. )

[_fetchface]

How would I know?

You wouldn't, of course. That's why made the comment.

The most shocking thing about drinking my first beer was that nothing happened. I felt...nothing different.

When you see a guy that is having trouble having a conversation, he's had a lot more than two beers.

[_mentalgymnast]

mentalgymnast, I will capture some statements from a few different posts below, since this thread has been moving pretty quickly relative to my own chance to respond.

I think things are winding down slowly but surely.

M.G.: I see the conflict [Book of Mormon dependency on certain Biblical stories being literal truth]and don't have a good resolution for that conflict within the traditional/orthodox LDS paradigm and/or way of thinking.

canpakes: OK. 'Within the LDS paradigm'... I suppose that it would be like jumping into your pool for a swim, then trying to find a dry spot within the water to stand for a moment.

M.G. Ha. That would take a walk on the water miracle. If the Book of Mormon falls somewhere within the parameters of Ostler's Expansion Theory, Joseph's 'Midrash' and the narrative on the plates written by the Nephite prophets, I wouldn't expect that something in the Book of Mormon such as the Global Flood or the Tower of Babel would have its origin on the plates. If we have other interjections, such as New Testament scripture and Isaiah with all of their italic glory found in the text, that tells us something. And I know what you and others here would say. So, I don't see any reason to expect that the Book of Mormon is a character for character translation of the plates. The mind of Joseph is in there. The contributions of other folks 'on the other side' may be in there.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N01_68.pdf

Your answer leaves open the possibility that you either don't believe or don't want to believe (but need to in order to support your faith otherwise) in the Tower of Babel story, as example. You're leaving me to guess the answer to that so I'm going to stick with this conclusion.

As I've said, the Tower of Babel is referred to in the Book of Mormon. The question is whether or not the text in the Book of Mormon exactly parallels the characters on the plates or if there is room for 'expansion' and/or midrash mixed within the text. Again, the plates were not being used directly during the translation so all bets are off as to exactly what was going on although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing between Joseph's mind and whatever other 'input' there was...and the resultant words seen using the seerstone in the hat. Considering some of the various explanations and/or examples of the various ways revelation/inspiration 'works' it wouldn't seem out of question to consider the translation process to be some kind of mix between the physical and the spiritual...with Joseph's mind in that mix. A fluid process rather than some cut and dried 'words were handed to him' process.

...a competent author can always add detail from his own pen and imagination/interpretation to an existing narrative in order to flesh it out, establish links or add 'complexity' for the purpose of furthering the claim of authenticity or historicity.

OK. Reading James Michener comes to mind. As I read his books I am THERE. It is hard to separate the fiction from the historical. And truth be told, the reader doesn't really want to. It's all part of the narrative.

In other words, 'filling in the gaps', more or less. I suspect that some material by Givens or Hardy might be like this, in the sense that either author may manufacture assumptions and then use them to bring the reader to certain conclusions... based on information that is not actually and plainly included in the Book of Mormon to begin with.

It's been a long while since I read "By the Hand of Mormon" so I won't comment there. In Hardy's book, however, he is contiually using explicit text to connect with explicit commentary and connection. He will ask questions here and there in which the reader then draws there own conclusions and/or personal commentary in their own head. Hardy doesn't tell or force anything as far as I can remember. What impressed me was the time and effort he expended to show how just about everything in the Book of Mormon fits together in a cohesive manner. Not just the chronological history, but the doctrinal associations and subsequent reinforcement by later prophets without making any errors where different prophets are 'walking' on each other, etc.

M.G. The first book I read after a period of questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity to the point of believing like many here was Terryl Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon". It's been a number of years now since I read it. It was sort of a game changer for me in the sense that after reading his book I took the Book of Mormon off the shelf and put it on the table again and spent more time in between the covers of the Book of Mormon instead of outside of the covers looking for more 'dirt'.

canpakes: An interesting choice of words. I think that some folks judge the historicity of the Book of Mormon strictly based upon a lack of 'dirt', so to speak - if 'dirt' in that case means the physical evidence that would have been left in its wake were it to be historical. This is opposed to the other kind of 'dirt' that I'd suppose refers to the transgressions of its author ('translator'). Myself, I don't tend to judge the chance of the Book's historicity based on Joseph Smith's personal-life shenanigans, whatever they might be. Rather, I've formed a conclusion based upon what has been physically discovered that supports the story, given the scope presented in the Book.

And that is the way to go, in my book. I would be pleased as pie if some sure fire evidence came forth 'from the dirt' in regards to the Book of Mormon's historicity. As it is, we mainly have to go with what is in between the front and back cover of the Book of Mormon. Personally, I see chiasmus as a strong indicator of something going on in the Book of Mormon besides a story teller just telling a story. But I know others will disagree with me. Unless you've read Hardy's book and done your own 'distillation' on what you've read there it is difficult for me to try and transfer to you that 'distillation' that occurred for me while I was reading it. It is difficult for me without going back and spending a lot of time reading it again to just 'spout off' stuff from the book to prove this or that here on this thread or in this forum. That's why I've suggested others read the book for themselves...do their own literal and/or figurative underlining and see what 'distills' in their own mind as a result.

M.G.:Although it wasn't as if I then ignored the issues, it's just that I looked at the Book of Mormon with 'fresh eyes' and with a new understanding that I didn't have before. Since then, the other works from Skousen, Hardy, and Brant Gardner have added to that repertoire of books that keep my eyes open to the possibilities of modern day scripture/revelation/restoration/belief in Christ/God, etc.

canpakes: I understand this thought. This is a different matter than historicity; here you finish out your comment with reference to spirituality and faith. I could expect that someone could find spiritual meaning within the Book of Mormon, especially if they were grounded in a basic Christian value system and familiar with the Christ story to begin with, given the Book of Mormon's heavy dependency on the Bible to establish its own narrative. But tweezing out the faith/spirituality element is not the same exercise as establishing historicity, and the presence of a spiritual component does not assert a historical origin, or vice versa. Would you agree?

Yes. But as I've stated at other times I look at things the view of what makes sense to me on more of a cosmic level. God, purpose, progression. I see the 'Christ story' as being a good fit to the way I see the cosmos. So I'm willing to cut Mormonism a bit more slack than someone that has rejected or finds the Christ story to be non-sensical, etc.

...we have a 'new edition' joining our small family within a few weeks so expenditures are committed to other things.

Congratulations! Best wishes with that.

Regards,
M.G.

[_spotlight]

I wouldn't expect that something in the Book of Mormon such as the Global Flood or the Tower of Babel would have its origin on the plates.

You know, if there had been a day and a night and a day as if it had been a single day there would not exist a single Native American tribe that would fail to have a story about such an event. But we only read of it in one location. The same place where these are mentioned: