Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

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

You miss the point again. I said Catholic have plenty of academics doing apologia for their own religion.

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.

I am missing where the Book of Mormon is considered a sacred text in a class above Dianetics by anyone outside of believing Mormons. Especially, MG, since you admit non-lds academics haven't taken it seriously as more then sacred fiction.

[_Lemmie]

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

Can you ever not lie in a discussion? this is becoming pathological.

You say:

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.

No. First you argue:

To emphasize the fact that the Book of Mormon finds itself in a very select group of scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon is no small thing in the world of religious texts/scriptures.

Then IHAQ makes the comparison, NOT you making the challenge:

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.

Then YOU make a request, answered by several people. NOT:

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.

Wrong order, mg. Your mid-thread summing up is invariably dishonest, always just enough of a twist to look like it's almost there, but always insidiously inaccurate and biased. Maybe you just are not careful in reading, or maybe you just write what you wish had happened. Either way, it's intellectually dishonest, your home base, apparently.

[_mentalgymnast]

So, after the convolutions and contortions that we've been through...again...thanks guys!!...it appears to me that one can realistically/logically take the point of view that the Book of Mormon is in a number of ways unique among the world 'scriptures'. Skousen points out how this is the case in his Introduction. If this is true, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that this book, in particular, would be put through the wringer...so to speak. That it would have its proponents and its detractors isn't as interesting to me as the fact that there don't seem to be any books that we can refer to that act as scholarly introspection/support to help folks along the way (with the other 'scriptures' referred to in this thread) in a similar way that Hardy's and Givens' books have done for those that have questioned the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

In other words's, if I was a Scientologist questioning my faith and particularly the spiritual foundations of Dianetics, what book would be the 'go to' book to act as an in depth study of that book? I've read Hardy. I've read Givens. I've read other books that support the spiritual foundations of the Book of Mormon. All I've been asking is whether or not there are specific books that do the same for other purported modern scriptures as "By the Hand of Mormon" and "Understanding the Book of Mormon" do for the Book of Mormon.

Convolutions and contortions notwithstanding. It seems to me that ONE book should be out there in the same class as the two I've mentioned here that would be 'go to' books for me or anyone else that would want to read a believing scholar of that faith/belief support the foundational underpinnings of their scripture. Simply, I haven't seen that come forth as a result of the question(s) I asked.

Just mud slinging. I have to admit, some of you guys are pretty good at that. But I don't want to enter into that fray, slinging mud all over the place. Experience on some other threads has taught me that this is a waste of time with no winners...although the herd mentality and those that can scream and bang pans the loudest will appear to have 'carried the day'. There really isn't any way for a 'loner' to fight this dynamic. I get it. I started an OP. I then had a question that I believed to have importance/merit. I then saw massive deflection/accusation occur that took us away from a simple answer to a simple question.

I think that my question has been answered...sort of. Like IHAQ, said...there are no answers to my simple request...at least that he could come up with. Nothing specific anyway.

For some reason these lyrics come floating through my mind...

Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon [his] head
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that [he] was dead

Hammer away!

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Your mid-thread summing up is invariably dishonest, always just enough of a twist to look like it's almost there, but always insidiously inaccurate and biased. Maybe you just are not careful in reading, or maybe you just write what you wish had happened. Either way, it's intellectually dishonest, your home base, apparently.

It's become a pattern, a compulsion. It would be interesting as pathology if it wasn't so annoying.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your mid-thread summing up is invariably dishonest, always just enough of a twist to look like it's almost there, but always insidiously inaccurate and biased. Maybe you just are not careful in reading, or maybe you just write what you wish had happened. Either way, it's intellectually dishonest, your home base, apparently.

It's become a pattern, a compulsion. It would be interesting as pathology if it wasn't so annoying.

Herd mentality.

Can't fight it. Live with it. All one can do is keep on pluggin'...

Take care,
MG

[_Maksutov]

It's become a pattern, a compulsion. It would be interesting as pathology if it wasn't so annoying.

Herd mentality.

Can't fight it. Live with it. All one can do is keep on pluggin'...

Take care,
MG

I hope you get better, MG.

[Guest]

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'.

Who is "we"? YOU and Mormon APOLOGISTS. Another exercise in futility. Mental GSB has done it again. It's been lightly tossed aside by everyone but Mormons since it was published.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think there's enough stuff in this thread to chew on.

My inquiry/interest/question, in its own way, has been resolved. I think I'm out at this point. Not interested in going into peripheral issues that others might have in regards to my ongoing and irreversible pathological condition.

Feel free to carry on the conversation.

Thanks!
MG

[_grindael]

I think there's enough stuff in this thread to chew on.

My inquiry/interest/question, in its own way, has been resolved. I think I'm out at this point. Not interested in going into peripheral issues that others might have in regards to my ongoing and irreversible pathological condition.

Feel free to carry on the conversation.

Thanks!
MG

Yes, once again your apologetic BS failed to make any impression on anyone.

[_mentalgymnast]

I hope you get better, MG.

Thanks Mak. I'm always trying to do/be better.

And continued best wishes for your health and happiness also.

Regards,
MG