Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

Here's the best book on Urantia:
http://www.amazon.com/Urantia-Great-Mys ... 1591026229

Gardner presents strong evidence to establish the identity of the man whose trancelike orations formed the basis of the book. Gardner also analyzes the flaws in Urantian science and points out many instances of plagiarism in various sections of the book.

The author isn't writing from an apologetic POV to convince folks that The Urantia Book has merit in regards to its foundational beginnings/narrative. Isn't he out to discredit it? What I was interested in is folks, hopefully scholars, that are writing to support the foundational underpinnings of the scripture. Again, that's what Hardy and Givens...and other people...have done for the Book of Mormon. I'm well aware of the books...in the same vein as Gardner's...that have been written to debunk the Book of Mormon. In this thread, that's not what I was looking for. I've already seen/read a number of them over the years.

It seems as though the reason that this thread seems to be whacky to a lot of folks here comes down to "I know the Book of Mormon is a fraud." As a result, anything that points towards alternative ways of looking at the Book of Mormon doesn't even get off the ground. And again, on this thread that's not (looking for evidence against the Book of Mormon) where I was interested in heading anyway. Threads abound where this is the course/trajectory. I was more interested in whether or not any folks out there have taken the time/effort...as Hardy and Givens have done...to defend these foundational scriptural texts that have been referred to by Hardy in the Introduction and other texts referred to here.

And if not, why? Would it be fair to say that the Book of Mormon has much more commentary/scholarship surrounding it than these other scriptural texts? Pro and con? If so, that gives an individual a wide range/view of Book of Mormon underpinnings. A reasonable choice can be made as to whether or not the book can be given any credence. With these other scriptures (Dianetics, Urantia, etc.) do we have the same thing going on? It seems as though all we have is the text itself and criticisms of the text/scripture...but not scholarly apologetics in support of the provenance of the text showing that it might have more going for it than simply coming out of the mind of a human being?

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Here's the best book on Urantia:
http://www.amazon.com/Urantia-Great-Mys ... 1591026229

Gardner presents strong evidence to establish the identity of the man whose trancelike orations formed the basis of the book. Gardner also analyzes the flaws in Urantian science and points out many instances of plagiarism in various sections of the book.

The author isn't writing from an apologetic POV to convince folks that The Urantia Book has merit in regards to its foundational beginnings/narrative. Isn't he out to discredit it? What I was interested in is folks, hopefully scholars, that are writing to support the foundational underpinnings of the scripture. Again, that's what Hardy and Givens...and other people...have done for the Book of Mormon. I'm well aware of the books...in the same vein as Gardner's...that have been written to debunk the Book of Mormon. In this thread, that's not what I was looking for. I've already seen/read a number of them over the years.

It seems as though the reason that this thread seems to be whacky to a lot of folks here comes down to "I know the Book of Mormon is a fraud." As a result, anything that points towards alternative ways of looking at the Book of Mormon doesn't even get off the ground. And again, on this thread that's not (looking for evidence against the Book of Mormon) where I was interested in heading anyway. Threads abound where this is the course/trajectory. I was more interested in whether or not any folks out there have taken the time/effort...as Hardy and Givens have done...to defend these foundational scriptural texts that have been referred to by Hardy in the Introduction and other texts referred to here.

And if not, why? Would it be fair to say that the Book of Mormon has much more commentary/scholarship surrounding it than these other scriptural texts? Pro and con? If so, that gives an individual a wide range/view of Book of Mormon underpinnings. A reasonable choice can be made as to whether or not the book can be given any credence. With these other scriptures (Dianetics, Urantia, etc.) do we have the same thing going on? It seems as though all we have is the text itself and criticisms of the text/scripture...but not scholarly apologetics in support of the provenance of the text showing that it might have more going for it than simply coming out of the mind of a human being?

Regards,
MG

Gardner wrote as a skeptic. What's wrong with that? The other books that grindael posted are largely apologetic. The best thing to do is read both.

The Book of Mormon makes specific verifiable claims and it fails. It pretends to be an actual history and exhibits many features suggesting fraud. There is a large body of works documenting and demonstrating this. When the basis of the text is so questionable, there seems little reason to treat the Book of Mormon as anything other than a 19th century work. The 19th century saw many channeled texts, like the Oahspe, The Book of Dzyan and a growing number of spiritualist and theosophist works. There are few academics who treat them as authentic. They're modern apocrypha, and so is the Book of Mormon.

[_mentalgymnast]

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?

Hardback. When it first came out.

I have no idea how many non-mormons have purchased and read this book.

We do have supportive editorial reviews such as these...found on Amazon:

"Hardy (history & religious studies, Univ. of North Carolina, Asheville) here argues that the Book of Mormon has not received, but deserves, treatment as a literary document on its own terms and that in order to do so the questions of historicity need to be bracketed. While some may question the latter approach, Hardy does provide a thorough literary analysis of the text, especially focusing on its narrative structure, the style of its main writers, and the characterizations of its principle actors. The focus, therefore, is on the narrators. Hardy begins with general observations about the book that he thinks everyone could agree on, a good starting point for any discussion of the Book of Mormon. VERDICT General readers might be stymied by some of the literary theory, but clearly academics will appreciate the seriousness with which Hardy goes about the task of examining a document whose influence is often overlooked in cultural and literary history."--Library Journal

"Hardy teases out the unique voice of each narrator, showing particular nuance as a student of character. He has great skill in reading between the lines-in the Book of Mormon, what is implied is often more intriguing than what is made explicit, and the editorial omissions of a redactor like Mormon can be revealing gaps. In Hardy's hands, the Book of Mormon begins to come alive as a kind of Shakespearean tragedy as Hardy nimbly employs various tools of literary criticism. It is past time for a study like this, which eschews tiresome debates about the Book of Mormon's historical authenticity in favor of a careful, lucid exploration of the book's construction, themes, and characters. Hardy's writing is clear, sometimes even piercing. This will be a classic work in the field of Mormon studies for decades to come."--Publishers Weekly Starred Review
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Boo ... _0&s=books

But I don't know of any hard evidence one way or the other to determine how many folks out there that are non-mormons have picked up and read the book. I suppose that where it is published by Oxford Press may help move it to a wider audience. Deseret Book wouldn't have helped move the book to those academics and others out there that might have a prejudice towards anything printed by a publishing company connected with the church.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...The best thing to do is read both...

Yes, I agree it is good to read those books that are pro and con. A while back in this thread, however, you mentioned that you have no reason/desire to pick up Hardy's book ( and may I safely assume you haven't read "By the Hand of Mormon" by Givens?) because your mind is already made up. I would guess that you may have "read both" genres way back when? What did you read that was 'pro' rather than 'con'?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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?

That would be nice. As it is, all we have is the text itself. No exegesis. I don't know that I'd have any reason to give Hubbard's 'scriptures' any more credence than LOTR. I know, you see the Book of Mormon in the same way. Thing is, the Book of Mormon does have A LOT more written about it from an exegetical view than Hubbard's Dianetics.

At least that's the way I see it. I could be wrong, of course.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

...The best thing to do is read both...

Yes, I agree it is good to read those books that are pro and con. A while back in this thread, however, you mentioned that you have no reason/desire to pick up Hardy's book ( and may I safely assume you haven't read "By the Hand of Mormon" by Givens?) because your mind is already made up. I would guess that you may have "read both" genres way back when? What did you read that was 'pro' rather than 'con'?

Regards,
MG

I've read enough to form a conclusion, and I have.

There are many 'pro' things about Mormons. How much of it is due to the religion, how much a larger culture, is one of those interesting things to study. There are many genres, many perspectives. I don't think you can exhaust them.

Can the Mormons turn the lead of Joseph's impostures into gold? We'll see. I think individuals can find ways to reconcile themselves to that, but not in a TBM community.

[_Themis]

The author isn't writing from an apologetic POV to convince folks that The Urantia Book has merit in regards to its foundational beginnings/narrative. Isn't he out to discredit it? What I was interested in is folks, hopefully scholars, that are writing to support the foundational underpinnings of the scripture. Again, that's what Hardy and Givens...and other people...have done for the Book of Mormon. I'm well aware of the books...in the same vein as Gardner's...that have been written to debunk the Book of Mormon. In this thread, that's not what I was looking for. I've already seen/read a number of them over the years.

The Bible and Quran and other large religions have plenty of apologetic writings in support of their sacred texts. If I thought it was worth it I would spend time looking for them, but it really isn't worth it.

It seems as though the reason that this thread seems to be whacky to a lot of folks here comes down to "I know the Book of Mormon is a fraud." As a result, anything that points towards alternative ways of looking at the Book of Mormon doesn't even get off the ground.

No, it is wacky because you don't really have any point to the OP other then the Book of Mormon has some academics doing apologia in defense of it. So what? Other sacred texts, including LDS ones, don't need this kind of apologia because they are subjective claimed revelations from the divine about how to live. Not a claimed divine translation of a supposed real people living in the Americas. Huge difference.

I was more interested in whether or not any folks out there have taken the time/effort...as Hardy and Givens have done...to defend these foundational scriptural texts that have been referred to by Hardy in the Introduction and other texts referred to here.

People have provided you with some, but if you are so interested why have yo not done your own homework? Is it because you don't really want to know?

And if not, why? Would it be fair to say that the Book of Mormon has much more commentary/scholarship surrounding it than these other scriptural texts?

The Book of Mormon has little scholarship surrounding it, and it is not going to be about the Book of Mormon being a historical document. Academics doing apologia has little chance of being real scholarship. The Bible and Quran have a lot of scholarship being done with those texts. You could add other sacred texts from eastern religions as well. People get actual secular degrees in some of these religions.

A reasonable choice can be made as to whether or not the book can be given any credence.

What credence? I don't see any outside of Mormonism for it being historical. lots though about it being sacred text. It's sacred text because you have people who believe it is.

With these other scriptures (Dianetics, Urantia, etc.) do we have the same thing going on? It seems as though all we have is the text itself and criticisms of the text/scripture...but not scholarly apologetics in support of the provenance of the text showing that it might have more going for it than simply coming out of the mind of a human being?

There is crap loads of apologia being written for many different sacred texts. You have been given examples of such with Urantia. The Bible, Koran, and other eastern texts will have those doing similar if you are really interested and do you own work. The Book of Mormon needs a lot more bacuse it claims are easily disprove. Other texts, including some LDS ones, make more subjective claims of revelations about how to live and subjective claims about God and the universe. You don't have to spend much time defending a claims about subjective claims of aliens because those who don't believe cannot really get any evidence to disprove the claims. Just not worth believing in a claim that has no evidence.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

Over the years as I've read quite a few books having to do with the Book of Mormon it has helped me immensely, yes. I've been able to get more deeply into the 'nuts and bolts' as a result.

...are [you] 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?

Not quite sure where you're going here...

What I think you're saying, however, is does it help when there are scholarly works/books written in support of a particular/purported work of 'scripture'? Well, yes.

A number of years ago now, after having started way back when reading Metcalfe's book (Approaches to the Book of Mormon) and others, I picked up Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon". It DID make a difference in the way I had previously been looking at the Book of Mormon as a result of reading one sided "Approaches"...pun intended.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

That would be nice. As it is, all we have is the text itself. No exegesis. I don't know that I'd have any reason to give Hubbard's 'scriptures' any more credence than LOTR. I know, you see the Book of Mormon in the same way. Thing is, the Book of Mormon does have A LOT more written about it from an exegetical view than Hubbard's Dianetics.

At least that's the way I see it. I could be wrong, of course.

Regards,
MG

You don't know because you have spent the time looking. You have spent many hours looking for writings about the Book of Mormon because that is your religion. You have probably read many regarding the Bible, and none about the Koran. Dopes that mean there is none about the Koran?

[_mentalgymnast]

Other sacred texts, including LDS ones, don't need this kind of apologia because they are subjective claimed revelations from the divine about how to live. Not a claimed divine translation of a supposed real people living in the Americas. Huge difference.

I think we can agree on that.

Hardy makes the same point in his Introduction. Sorry that earlier I had attributed the Introduction linked to in my OP to Skousen...

Regards,
MG