Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_kairos]

It is important to note that probably 135million or more of the printed BOMs have found there way into trash cans and landfills. Printing very large numbers of the Book of Mormon does not give it credibility imho.
finally i believe skousen knows that the kjv in the Book of Mormon cannot be explained logically so he has to go to heaven to have god get guys like tyndale and wycliffe to give Joseph Smith inspiration- what BS thinking that is!

just pontificatin
k

[_tkv]

mg,
The introduction you keep referring to was written by Hardy, not Skousen.
just sayin
tkv

[_tkv]

k,
If I recall correctly people who saw jsjr dictating said he saw words on the rock in the hat. so they didn't think he was the translator into english, only a translator in a ltd sense -- a relay. Dictation testimony is basically of the opinion that goddidit. Then bhr decided because of bad grammar that jsjr was the translator into english from ideas (except i guess for names). Others have followed bhr. But it sounds like skousen thinks the mss agree with the statements of those who saw the dictation, not the statements of bhr et al.
just spitballin
tkv

[_mentalgymnast]

mg,
The introduction you keep referring to was written by Hardy, not Skousen.
just sayin'
tkv

Thanks for that clarification. by the way, I wasn't being intellectually dishonest ...I honestly hadn't read the complete introduction. As a result I didn't see Grant Hardy's name at the end. Now that I think about it, however, this introduction looks similar to his writing in his book: Understanding the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

[_cognitiveharmony]

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

MG, The Book of Mormon is unique in many ways. Joseph Smith was unique in many ways. The separatist culture that was was built around the religion that Joseph started was somewhat unique in and of itself and allowed the church to grow to the point that it would be self sustaining. It's not surprising, given it's history and culture, that educated BIC Mormons would write apologetic books defending their faith. What difference does it make if there are other books of scripture that are an EXACT comparison? There are books of scripture that have been mentioned that are apt comparisons but won't match in every detail. It's a strange thing for you to keep looking and grasping at vague ideas that you consider might support your faith when there's a plethora of specific and detailed information that undermines it. I personally think your conviction lies purely in the emotional relationship you have with Mormonism and you are desperately trying to reconcile that with reality. You know you won't get any support with this type of thing here. Not because we're biased and have an axe to grind, but simply because there's little if any evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon and plenty that suggests it's fiction. Until you can establish the book's historicity, what good does it do to discuss inconsequential topics such as this? It's akin to asking if there are any books written about how fairy dust works to add credence to the claim that Bigfoot exists.

[_mentalgymnast]

...I was hoping at some point MG would just "get it"...

The OP was a reference to Skousen's work and an Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

I asked IHAQ a question.

He wasn't able to answer.

I thanked him for his answer even though he couldn't come up with anything substantive.

He put the Book of Mormon in the same class as Hubbard's writings. I challenged him on that.

Other folks didn't or couldn't give any specific names of books that have been written on a similar vein as Hardy's book or Givens' book (relative to the Book of Mormon) that would help me understand, in a deeper sense, the workings/exegesis of Hubbard's scripture or other 'modern' invented scriptures. I honestly wanted to know of books in the same class that would help me understand these other writings in more depth.

I was then called intellectually dishonest and had other labels thrown my way.

Intellectually dishonest= not agreeing with or challenging the status quo and providing alternate points of view and assuming that not all the thinking has been done.

Regards,
MG

[_fetchface]

Intellectually dishonest= not agreeing with or challenging the status quo and providing alternate points of view and assuming that not all the thinking has been done.

Regards,
MG

No. Intellectually dishonest= Ignoring people's points that are inconvenient for you while insisting that others direct their attention at your points.

This is a discussion board for two way communication. Like I said earlier, you are engaging in mental masturbation here. Only you are satisfied by it.

[_Themis]

He put the Book of Mormon in the same class as Hubbard's writings. I challenged him on that.

And why is it not in the same class? Just because there MAY not be Scientologists of academic standing doing apologetic work on Hubbard's writings? Really? I have never really looked for this kind of work. Probably much the same as the rest of the planet in regards to looking for apologia from LDS academics. Who cares. Even if there are no academic apologists in Scientology, how does this make the Book of Mormon in a better class? Are you so desperate to believe?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, I am wondering if you can clarify something.

It seems that you are trying to advance a particular conclusion about the Book of Mormon based on other books that are not written about the Book of Mormon.

Is this correct?

ETA: alternately, are trying to advance a particular conclusion about the Book of Mormon based on other books that have not been written and that would not be about the Book of Mormon?

Hi canpakes, I'll come back to this later. You bring up an interesting 'twist'. I'm going to be out on the road with my work most of the day. I'll come back and respond. Themis, same with your post. At this point in the thread I'm open to going other directions now that my question has...or is that hasn't... been answered. I'm OK with leaving that track of inquiry at this point. It isn't going to provide anything substantive apparently.

Thanks for your civil participation, by the way. It's nice to be able to go back and forth without all the vitriol and such that we see from some quarters.

Later.

Regards,
MG

[_Lloyd Dobler]

He put the Book of Mormon in the same class as Hubbard's writings. I challenged him on that.

And why is it not in the same class? Just because there MAY not be Scientologists of academic standing doing apologetic work on Hubbard's writings? Really? I have never really looked for this kind of work. Probably much the same as the rest of the planet in regards to looking for apologia from LDS academics. Who cares. Even if there are no academic apologists in Scientology, how does this make the Book of Mormon in a better class? Are you so desperate to believe?

This thread is a joke. So a lot of Mormon academics love to write about the Book of Mormon. Yeah, amazing. You know MG, it just so happens that the LDS church owns two universities that I can think of so the church actually has university systems in place for Mormon academics to produce bs content about the Book of Mormon and further their career. These people are incentivized by the church to write this crap.....hell MG, writing about the Book of Mormon is its own Mormon cottage industry. Grant Hardy's book is on sale on Amazon right now. Did you buy the Kindle, Hardback or used edition? And if this scholarship is so amazing, how many non Mormons do you think bought this book?