Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[Guest]

I realise this may be difficult for you to accept but, it's in the same group as the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the pronouncements of Warren Jeffs and for the same reason. A group of people have decided to follow those writings regardless of any provable historicity or divinity. It's only sacred an authoritative to those people who believe it is sacred and authoritative.

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.

No. I don't think there's anything I can point to that would cause you to consider that.
Now what?

Have you read Grant Palmer, a man along the lines of Givens who reaches a different conclusion about the Book of Mormon?
Can you point to an academic who isn't a Mormon who gives the Book of Mormon the same historic credibility as Skousen and Givens? If not, why do you think that might be?
Why does the Smithsonean still ignore the Book of Mormon?

Even the Church's own University doesn't take it seriously...

I maintain that numerous policies adopted by a wide range of BYU administrators over the past thirty years have had the effect—intended or unintended—of destroying ancient Book of Mormon studies as a fledgling discipline. Here’s how.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticm ... n-studies/
He concludes:

Conclusion. I don’t know what the goals or motives of the BYU administrators have been over the past thirty years in relationship to the Book of Mormon. I suspect they haven’t actually considered the implications of their policy decisions at all. Their focus is on other important aspects of running a university. However, the law of unintended (and perhaps even some intended) consequences has resulted in a series of administrative policy decisions over the past thirty years all of which have combined to result in undermining serious ancient Book of Mormon studies at BYU. Indeed, if their actual goal was to intentionally minimize the discipline of ancient Book of Mormons studies, they could have achieved that goal no better than by making precisely the decisions they have made.

Have you read the academic dialogue about the historicity of the Book of Mormon between Hamblin and Jenkins?

[_Maksutov]

Philip Jenkins, recognized scholar and professor of religious studies at Baylor:

In very rough summary, using the customary ten point sequence:

1. Any discussion of historicity or literal truth has to focus first on the question of whether any or all of the peoples, societies and languages described in the Book actually were present in any part of the Americas at the time described. Every other issue and claim is subsidiary.

2. Given the lack of textual evidence, that has to be an archaeological question, rather than a subject for academic history. Of course, where contemporary texts survive, as in the case of the ancient Maya, then history and archaeology can and must be integrated, but otherwise, archaeology must take precedence. That observation determines the methodologies to be used.

3. Archaeology is a science, with well-established rules and principles. It is empirical in nature, and pursues familiar scientific practice in making and testing hypotheses. Any claims or statements must be testable, refutable and falsifiable. I describe at some length what these principles are, and how they work in practice within the realm of archaeology. Archaeology, like any discipline, also has clear standards about what claims can be considered credible: generally, this implies peer-reviewed publication.
Evidence cannot be considered if it is merely anecdotal or impressionistic. There’s no point citing vague, generic “parallels” that supposedly exist between Old and New Worlds.

4. The far-reaching statements made by the Book of Mormon about the New World stand in stark contrast to any kind of scholarly consensus in any recognized discipline whatever, doubly so because of the wholly supernatural claims on which they are based. They are therefore extraordinary in nature, and demand high standards of proof. Evidence must be subject to the strictest criteria outlined above: it must be testable, refutable and falsifiable.

5. Also because of this extraordinary quality, any statements made in support of the Book of Mormon’s historicity must be positive in nature, in the sense that specific claims must first be advanced by believers for testing and verification. The burden of proof is wholly on the claims-makers. Non-believers are not required to do anything in order to disprove statements made by the Book.

6. I have made a great many repeated requests for any proposed piece of credible, objective evidence of this kind that might be subjected to such a process to testing and verification.
Far from requesting comprehensive proofs of the whole Book – an impossible task – I have requested merely one single piece of credible evidence that might confirm the Book of Mormon’s account of the New World. As examples, I have cited the kind of items that are so regularly used by archaeologists, such as architectural remains, inscriptions, metalwork, pottery, weaponry, and so on. I am of course defining the realm of archaeology widely, so that evidence derived from genetics or linguistics would also be welcome.

7. To date, I have never received or seen even the hint of any such credible, positive evidence concerning the New World.

8. In the total absence of such evidence, it is impossible for any debate to proceed. We must hold to the default position that the Book of Mormon was entirely composed by an American author in the early nineteenth century. It has no validity whatever as a picture of the pre-Columbian Americas.

9. My conclusion to Dr. Hamblin is therefore as follows: Without such positive, objective, verifiable evidence – evidence subject to the rules and conditions that I have laid out here – then you have zero grounds to support or advocate the historicity of the Book of Mormon other than religious faith, which is not susceptible to academic discussion or examination.

10. Ergo, we cannot even speak of a debate or controversy about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The Book is a product of religious faith, and must be received on the basis of religious faith. It has nothing to do with scholarship.

[_mentalgymnast]

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?

This is a stupid question. No one would write such a book. The Book of Mormon is too ridiculous for any credible academic to waste time on, except for Mormons.

I don't think you read the thread. Or at least you don't know what the question is that I'm asking.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

No. I don't think there's anything I can point to...

Thanks for your answer.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

No. I don't think there's anything I can point to...

Thanks for your answer.

Regards,
MG

I await similar consideration for my questions...

[_Maksutov]

This is a stupid question. No one would write such a book. The Book of Mormon is too ridiculous for any credible academic to waste time on, except for Mormons.

I don't think you read the thread. Or at least you don't know what the question is that I'm asking.

Regards,
MG

Or you can't comprehend what you read. He said it was a stupid question. He gets to have that opinion. We live in America.

[_mentalgymnast]

I await similar consideration for my questions...

You had stated that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's and Jeff's 'scripture'. I think that this is basically and outrageous thing to propose. That's why I asked whether or not you could point me towards some books written by academics that would help me understand why you believe this to be the case. You couldn't.

So why should I give Hubbard's writings...The Urantia Book...Warren Jeff's writings, Course in Miracles, etc., the same credence or benefit of the doubt that I give to the Book of Mormon? That's an unanswered question as of yet.

You seem to be saying that I should. That's what I don't understand.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

I await similar consideration for my questions...

You had stated that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's and Jeff's 'scripture'. I think that this is basically and outrageous thing to propose. That's why I asked whether or not you could point me towards some books written by academics that would help me understand why you believe this to be the case. You couldn't.

So why should I give Hubbard's writings...The Urantia Book...Warren Jeff's writings, Course in Miracles, etc., the same credence or benefit of the doubt that I give to the Book of Mormon? That's an unanswered question as of yet.

You seem to be saying that I should. That's what I don't understand.

Regards,
MG

Still waiting for you to answer my questions.

[_Maksutov]

So why should I give Hubbard's writings...The Urantia Book...Warren Jeff's writings, Course in Miracles, etc., the same credence or benefit of the doubt that I give to the Book of Mormon? That's an unanswered question as of yet.

You seem to be saying that I should. That's what I don't understand.

Regards,
MG

You don't have to give them credence but you won't even bother to read them. I read them. You won't. You're closed minded. Your appeal to us to read Skousen is just proselytizing. And you think we can't see through it?

Why aren't you talking about Grant Palmer and Philip Jenkins' views on the Book of Mormon? They know quite a lot about it. But when they come up, or Michael Coe, or Robert Ritner, all you have is crickets and deflection. And your church goes one further and cuts off people who dare to ask questions, because they don't care about the truth, any more than you do. You and your church are afraid of what you'll find, that you won't have answers, that's why You Won't. Even. Try.

[_Themis]

I await similar consideration for my questions...

You had stated that the Book of Mormon was in the same class as Hubbard's and Jeff's 'scripture'. I think that this is basically and outrageous thing to propose. That's why I asked whether or not you could point me towards some books written by academics that would help me understand why you believe this to be the case. You couldn't.

I did. I wouldn't suggest Hubbard's is not in the same class. He has many followers and in a much shorter time span the Mormonism. I think you might find some academics in that crowd instead of Tom Cruise or John Travolta.