Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_fetchface]

Hubbard's writings are all considered scripture by his followers, and the sheer volume and complexity of them dwarfs that of the Book of Mormon by any objective measure.

MG, this isn't mental gymnastics that you are engaging in here, it's mental masturbation. Do you feel better yet? I think I'm done watching you do this.

Especially distasteful is your hypocrisy in calling out others for not answering questions and dodging the questions you don't like.

[_canpakes]

My question remains unanswered.

Here's the thing. I've read a number of books that lead me towards giving the Book of Mormon some credence and even the benefit of a doubt, even with some of the issues that remain insufficiently answered. If I thought/felt like Hubbard's Dianetics or Jeff's writings were even in the same ballpark as the Book of Mormon I'd give them a second look. I've read some of Hubbard's writings, but not Warren Jeffs. But I'm not aware of any academics that have really given their 'scriptures' any serious look at all.

No academics outside of LDS adherents have given the Book of Mormon a look and claimed authenticity. Several, though, have given it a look from the standpoint of social phenomenon. Nothing unusual about that, and the latter does not then assert the former simply by existing.

You will see the Book of Mormon differently than, say, Dianetics, because you grew up immersed in that theology presented as fact from your earliest days. It is literally a part of your mental processing and perception of reality and you aren't (or, most folks cannot) easily able to separate yourself from your own perceived reality regardless of however objectively real it may or may not be. Had you grown up in a Jewish household you would never give the Book of Mormon a second's thought.

[_brotherjake]

My question remains unanswered.

Here's the thing. I've read a number of books that lead me towards giving the Book of Mormon some credence and even the benefit of a doubt, even with some of the issues that remain insufficiently answered. If I thought/felt like Hubbard's Dianetics or Jeff's writings were even in the same ballpark as the Book of Mormon I'd give them a second look. I've read some of Hubbard's writings, but not Warren Jeffs. But I'm not aware of any academics that have really given their 'scriptures' any serious look at all.

No academics outside of LDS adherents have given the Book of Mormon a look and claimed authenticity. Several, though, have given it a look from the standpoint of social phenomenon. Nothing unusual about that, and the latter does not then assert the former simply by existing.

You will see the Book of Mormon differently than, say, Dianetics, because you grew up immersed in that theology presented as fact from your earliest days. It is literally a part of your mental processing and perception of reality and you aren't (or, most folks cannot) easily able to separate yourself from your own perceived reality regardless of however objectively real it may or may not be. Had you grown up in a Jewish household you would never give the Book of Mormon a second's thought.

Bingo. However, I think it's important that MG's point be acknowledged.

Could you point me towards any books written by academics that would cause me to consider the writings of these men to be in any way comparable to the Book of Mormon? Say, someone along the line of a Terryl Givens or a Grant Hardy? I would be interested in reading any books that you could recommend that would show that the complexity/narrative of those 'holy writings' are in the same class as the Book of Mormon.

Yes, MG, you are correct that there are aren't as many publications from established presses that engage the sacred texts of other obscure religions (such as Dianetics or the Urantia Book) as the Book of Mormon. However, it should be pointed out that the only books that do so are written by Mormon academics, as evidenced by searching "Book of Mormon" on the OUP website. So, the only conclusion you can really draw from this is that there are more Mormon academics willing to write about their religious text than there are Scientologist academics willing to write about their religious texts. And since these are simply books published by OUP (as opposed to articles in a peer-reviewed journal), I'm not sure which "class" you're inferring that the Book of Mormon is in by pointing this out. The headline here is "Mormon academics love the Book of Mormon." Not exactly earth-shattering.

Now, if you're willing to open the query to academic publications that discuss fringe religions like Scientology or Mormonism in any capacity (rather than just the faith-promoting stuff), then we'd get at the question you seem to be trying to answer indirectly through this line of questioning--is the antiquity of the Book of Mormon taken seriously outside of Mormonism?

Is that a question you'd be interested in exploring?

[_mentalgymnast]

Especially distasteful is your hypocrisy in calling out others for not answering questions and dodging the questions you don't like.

Up to this point, the question(s) I asked have not been answered. That's important because over and over again the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism is held up next to some of the other modern religious movements and/or their 'scriptures' as being cut from the same cloth. The Book of Mormon has been dissected and looked at from many angles. We are left with reasons for belief vs. non-belief. But those reasons are able to be reached one way or the other because of the work folks have done in support of or against the Book of Mormon. My challenge to IHAQ was to demonstrate that Hubbard's scriptures and Warren Jeff's scriptures have undergone scrutiny to the extent the the Book of Mormon has. And most importantly, whether or not any real scholarship has been applied to these two folks and their scriptures so that I or anyone else can access/read the books that have been written so that we can have additional evidence and/or reason to believe in those scriptures. He was not able to do so. Then he places the Book of Mormon in the same class as Hubbard's work and Jeff's work. I see that as being unreasonable and even laughable. I don't understand how IHAQ, as a reasonable fellow, can do this with a straight face.

For a while now, it appears that when I enter a thread we end up with stuff like "hypocrisy" "distasteful" "dishonest".

Labels.

In this thread I asked, what I believe to be, an important question of IHAQ. The question wasn't adequately answered by him or anyone. That is, assuming that there is an answer besides "I don't know".

Going back to Skousen's introduction, the point of posting this thread...we can see that the Book of Mormon is a unique addition to the category of writing we call 'sacred text" or 'scripture'. It cannot lightly be tossed aside in the sense that we can throw it into the same class as Hubbard's Dianetics. Or Warren Jeff's 'scripture'. Yet, that is what was blatantly attempted by IHAQ.

Again, if someone can show me some books that have been written in support of Hubbard's work, Jeff's work, The Urantia Book (no, not just a LONG list of entries in the Table of Contents), or Course in Miracles, etc., with the same degree of scholarship that has been applied to the Book of Mormon by folks such as Givens, Hardy, and others...I'm all ears/eyes.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

No academics outside of LDS adherents have given the Book of Mormon a look and claimed authenticity.

That doesn't surprise me.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Especially distasteful is your hypocrisy in calling out others for not answering questions and dodging the questions you don't like.

Up to this point, the question(s) I asked have not been answered. That's important because over and over again the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism is held up next to some of the other modern religious movements and/or their 'scriptures' as being cut from the same cloth. The Book of Mormon has been dissected and looked at from many angles. We are left with reasons for belief vs. non-belief. But those reasons are able to be reached one way or the other because of the work folks have done in support of or against the Book of Mormon. My challenge to IHAQ was to demonstrate that Hubbard's scriptures and Warren Jeff's scriptures have undergone scrutiny to the extent the the Book of Mormon has. And most importantly, whether or not any real scholarship has been applied to these two folks and their scriptures so that I or anyone else can access/read the books that have been written so that we can have additional evidence and/or reason to believe in those scriptures. He was not able to do so. Then he places the Book of Mormon in the same class as Hubbard's work and Jeff's work. I see that as being unreasonable and even laughable. I don't understand how IHAQ, as a reasonable fellow, can do this with a straight face.

For a while now, it appears that when I enter a thread we end up with stuff like "hypocrisy" "distasteful" "dishonest".

Labels.

In this thread I asked, what I believe to be, an important question of IHAQ. The question wasn't adequately answered by him or anyone. That is, assuming that there is an answer besides "I don't know".

Going back to Skousen's introduction, the point of posting this thread...we can see that the Book of Mormon is a unique addition to the category of writing we call 'sacred text" or 'scripture'. It cannot lightly be tossed aside in the sense that we can throw it into the same class as Hubbard's Dianetics. Or Warren Jeff's 'scripture'. Yet, that is what was blatantly attempted by IHAQ.

Again, if someone can show me some books that have been written in support of Hubbard's work, Jeff's work, The Urantia Book (no, not just a LONG list of entries in the Table of Contents), or Course in Miracles, etc., with the same degree of scholarship that has been applied to the Book of Mormon by folks such as Givens, Hardy, and others...I'm all ears/eyes.

Regards,
MG

You keep refusing to look at what has been given you and you continue to complain about what amounts to your own failure to understand what we're talking about. Next you'll be whining.

Your OP was to get us to read, comment on Royal Skousen. When people tell you they don't need to, that it's irrelevant and doesn't change the fraudulent nature of the text, you refuse to accept that.

This is your pattern. It's some compulsion of yours. You did this on other threads. Why do we have to go through this same ridiculous ritual with you over and over? Your special pleading doesn't work. Let me see if I can make that clear.

Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.
Your special pleading doesn't work.

[_mentalgymnast]

Now, if you're willing to open the query to academic publications that discuss fringe religions like Scientology or Mormonism in any capacity (rather than just the faith-promoting stuff), then we'd get at the question you seem to be trying to answer indirectly through this line of questioning--is the antiquity of the Book of Mormon taken seriously outside of Mormonism?

Is that a question you'd be interested in exploring?

The question(s) I am interested in exploring have been stated rather clearly. And the reason(s) for looking at that question as being relevant to any discussion regarding the value/importance/uniqueness of the Book of Mormon juxtaposed next to the 'scriptural' works produced by others...including those mentioned by Skousen in his Introduction to "The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text".

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You keep refusing to look at what has been given you...

I don't see anything of value that's been given to me in response to my question(s). Would you be willing to point out what you're referring to?

I've seen misdirection, labeling, and accusations, etc., but not much of anything else.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

.
Your special pleading doesn't work.

Misdirection. You haven't had anything of value to say in response to my honest inquiry/question(s).

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Lazy. And lying. You've been responded to.

Where did you give any relevant response to my question(s)?

You haven't. Lazy. Lying.

Regards,
MG