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.
I'm not sure why you are putting their writings in the same class as the Book of Mormon?
Regards, MG
I don't want to speak for him but perhaps it is because he recognizes that your question just amounts to special pleading.
mentalgymnast wrote:I have a question. 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.
The LOTR. Far better fiction and more believable. Hell he even created an actual language for it and Joseph only claimed one. It gives great details of geography and many groups and cultures. While the Book of Mormon is terrible with two dimensional characters the LOTR is a little better.
Maksutov wrote: Below I provide...the Table of Contents of the book...
Wow. It's long.
Could you answer the same question I'm posting to IHAQ? And instead of Hubbard's 'scripture' or Jeff's writings focus on The Urantia Book? Anything, let's say, out of Oxford Press...or the like...that I can read that would give me some indication and/or press me into thinking that I really ought to give this book a serious look at being scripture from God?
Like I've said, I've read books that have caused me to give the Book of Mormon a second look, third look, and so on...even at times when I've questioned its authenticity. If you could point me in the direction of academics or learned folks that have written in depth in regards the Urantia Book? Something along the line of what Hardy did for the Book of Mormon?
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.
I'm not sure why you are putting their writings in the same class as the Book of Mormon?
Regards, MG
I don't want to speak for him but perhaps it is because he recognizes that your question just amounts to special pleading.
I'll wait for his answer. I expect that there might be some kind of deflection, but we'll see.
MG wrote:I'm not sure why you are putting their writings in the same class as the Book of Mormon?
Cureloms and Cumons are in a class by themselves.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Maksutov wrote: Below I provide...the Table of Contents of the book...
Wow. It's long.
Could you answer the same question I'm posting to IHAQ? And instead of Hubbard's 'scripture' or Jeff's writings focus on The Urantia Book? Anything, let's say, out of Oxford Press...or the like...that I can read that would give me some indication and/or press me into thinking that I really ought to give this book a serious look at being scripture from God?
Like I've said, I've read books that have caused me to give the Book of Mormon a second look, third look, and so on...even at times when I've questioned its authenticity. If you could point me in the direction of academics or learned folks that have written in depth in regards the Urantia Book? Something along the line of what Hardy did for the Book of Mormon?
Regards, MG
No. I'm tired of answering your questions that are based on special pleading. I want YOU to read something for a change. Go read 100 pages of the Urantia Book. Why won't you consider it? Why should I give yet ANOTHER look at the Book of Mormon when you refuse to look at other stuff even once?
Grant Hardy's book is of no interest to me because he is backing into everything and you know it. How about Stan Larson's book on Tom Ferguson's investigation of the Book of Mormon? We can't talk about that one, though, can we? MG, the "world" knows all about the Book of Mormon, as much as it needs to in order to reject it. Too bad you don't like that. A lot of the world doesn't accept faithful assertions about the Bible or the Koran, either. Deal with it. Your all powerful book isn't. People outside your church don't respect it, believe it, or like it. They really have no reason to. And all the pushy teenagers in the mountain west aren't going to change that.
That picture is one of many resources in regards to the Book of Mormon found on this site. It's just a picture. There are probably other pictures linked to also. I'll leave it to others to peruse through the archive. There's a LOT of stuff there.
Nice pic though.
Morely, Mak, Canpake, and others...I'm actually being serious about the fact that if there are trained/qualified academic folks out there that have done the same thing for The Urantia Book, Hubbard's Dianetics, and Course in Miracles that Hardy, Givens, and others have done for the Book of Mormon, I'm interested. These three books just mentioned are new comers to the scriptural arena. We ought to be able to put them in the same class as the Book of Mormon as it relates to giving them serious academic/scholarly perusal or criticism. I'm simply interested, as others may be, in where we might go to find the same sort of investigation in regards to those books as we can in regards to the Book of Mormon?
That picture is one of many resources in regards to the Book of Mormon found on this site. It's just a picture. There are probably other pictures linked to also. I'll leave it to others to peruse through the archive. There's a LOT of stuff there.
Nice pic though.
Morely, Mak, Canpake, and others...I'm actually being serious about the fact that if there are trained/qualified academic folks out there that have done the same thing for The Urantia Book, Hubbard's Dianetics, and Course in Miracles that Hardy, Givens, and others have done for the Book of Mormon, I'm interested. These three books just mentioned are new comers to the scriptural arena. We ought to be able to put them in the same class as the Book of Mormon as it relates to giving them serious academic/scholarly perusal or criticism. I'm simply interested, as others may be, in where we might go to find the same sort of investigation in regards to those books as we can in regards to the Book of Mormon?
Regards, MG
Why the "same sort of investigation"? There are religious studies scholars that have studied all of these. Read Ann Taves, J. Gordon Mellon, Philip Jenkins (yes, THAT Philip Jenkins), historians like Robert Fogarty, Whitney Cross...there are hundreds of scholars out there, MG. You aren't looking for them.
You don't get to just start including and excluding religions from consideration without knowing anything about them. What right do you have to do that? The problem is that most of us here DO know a lot about Mormonism, living it and its history, while you don't know squat about these other groups and their texts. So what have you got? Your special pleading again. Do you need another seminar on integrity?
Maksutov wrote:Grant Hardy's book is of no interest to me...the "world" knows all about the Book of Mormon, as much as it needs to in order to reject it.
I suspect that is the common consensus among many here.
My intent in the OP is to give others an opportunity to read Skousen's introduction, etc., and make of it what they will. It's a given, as you've just said, that nothing that is said/written would ever change your POV in regards to the Book of Mormon anyway. That isn't something that we didn't already know in advance.
Of course.