Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

Hubbard's writings are all considered scripture by his followers...

OK. Not going to dispute that.

...and the sheer volume and complexity of them dwarfs that of the Book of Mormon by any objective measure.

Volume doesn't seem to be any indicator, at least to me, that something considered 'scripture' is more valuable than another book of scripture that has less 'volume'. As far as complexity of NARRATIVE, that's what I'm asking about over and over again. Can we refer to books that have been written that would help me or anyone else really understand what's going on in these other scriptural works? It seems as though all we have are 'stand alone' books without any scholarship to look at in regards to their purported complexity, etc.

And yet we have folks doing the 'knee jerk' and throwing those works in with the Book of Mormon without a second thought.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

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

That doesn't surprise me.

Regards,
MG

This means no real academic scrutiny has been done on the Book of Mormon. The Catholics have a lot of academics doing apologetic work as well.

Why should any academics do this work when the Book of Mormon is obvious fiction to them. What a waste of their time.

[_mentalgymnast]

The Catholics have a lot of academics doing apologetic work as well.

Why should any academics do this work when the Book of Mormon is obvious fiction to them. What a waste of their time.

Are you saying that you really don't understand why Catholic academics would not spend the time/effort to do scholarship investigation in regards to the Book of Mormon? I can tell you why...oh, you already said it.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

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

I referred you to Ann Taves and J. Gordon Mellon and others. They discuss what you claim to seek. But you don't, really. You're lying about that, too. You aren't here to learn, just preach. You're too lazy to do the reading and you don't have the integrity to actually consider different ideas, but you're dishonest enough to claim that you do. The evidence is here for everyone to see. You were exposed before and I hoped that you would learn something from it. You didn't, you're back with the same shtick.

Here's some names for you to remember: Jenkins. Ritner. Coe. Of course you won't read them, either.

Remember:

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]

I referred you to Ann Taves and J. Gordon Mellon and others.

A book or books that they have written that attempt to look at the other 'scriptural works' that have been mentioned here.

Name the book(s)? I've mentioned Terryl Givens and Grant Hardy in reference to the Book of Mormon. And the books they've written.

Could you do the same for these two? Books they've written in regards to which scriptural works? Hubbard, Urantia, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_deacon blues]

Lots of cute comments here. Is Skousen's skin thick enough to handle them?

[_Maksutov]

I referred you to Ann Taves and J. Gordon Mellon and others.

A book or books that they have written that attempt to look at the other 'scriptural works' that have been mentioned here.

Name the book(s)? I've mentioned Terryl Givens and Grant Hardy in reference to the Book of Mormon. And the books they've written.

Could you do the same for these two? Books they've written in regards to which scriptural works? Hubbard, Urantia, etc.

Regards,
MG

I've given you enough to get started. Show some initiative. Why should we spoon feed you?

The point of your OP was that you recommended Skousen's work. Several of us told you why we didn't care. You are trying to make it into something else. It's about Skousen and his apologetic and irrelevant work. Do you understand that? If you want to go into studying other religions, we don't have the time or the place here, because it will amount to me schooling you and I don't see why you're worth it. Convince me.

[_Fionn]

For pity's sake, MG. It's called Amazon.

The Church of Scientology (Studies in Contemporary Religions, series volume 1) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1560851392/re ... ixb626S9FN

[_canpakes]

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

That doesn't surprise me.

Regards,
MG

Why do you suppose this is the case?

[_Lemmie]

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.

No, "we" cannot "see" that Book of Mormon is unique addition, you have postulated that.

You cannot prove a premise by assuming your premise is true.

Likewise, it is not a statement of fact that the Book of Mormon is not in the same class as Hubbard's and Jeff's writings, that is your opinion. IHAQ and others have expressed, but more to the point, have supported with argument and evidence, a different opinion.

And yet we have folks doing the 'knee jerk' and throwing those works in with the Book of Mormon without a second thought.

Hm..interesting opinion. That is not what I have seen in this thread. Lots of thought has been given, in post after post. Quite an interesting read.

Eta: as I finish reading through all the pages of this thread, I can see that Maksutov's words pretty much capture the whole picture, enough that they bear repeating:

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.

...You aren't here to learn, just preach. You're too lazy to do the reading and you don't have the integrity to actually consider different ideas, but you're dishonest enough to claim that you do. The evidence is here for everyone to see. You were exposed before and I hoped that you would learn something from it. You didn't, you're back with the same shtick.