Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

You're comparing keystone religious texts and saying some have a lot more written about them than The Book of Mormon.Some have less written about them than The Book of Mormon.

The sacred texts and scriptures from antiquity have more written about them. The sacred texts and scriptures from the last century or so have less. The Book of Mormon, however, seems to be in a class of its own in regards to the amount of critical commentary/exegesis that has been written. For example, the Bahai faith...brought up earlier in this thread...has scripture/sacred text. There seems to be little critical exegesis/commentary on this scriptural work however.

...Taherzadeh's series Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is by far the most extensive source of information on Bahá'u'lláh's various writings, giving details such as when they were revealed, to whom, and under what circumstances. Unfortunately the work has no information on the Middle Eastern social and historical context of Bahá'u'lláh, and how that context influenced his writings, and is not written critically, from a scholarly point of view, and thus must be used carefully. Extensive historical-critical scholarship on Bahá'u'lláh's writings remains to be done...
http://bahai-library.org/books/rg/rg.biblio07.html

You think it's amazing that The Book of Mormon has more written about it than the texts of religions that have less written about them.

In regards to the scriptures/sacred texts produced in the last couple of hundred years or so, yes...I think it is, at the very least, interesting to see the voluminous amount of material on the Book of Mormon juxtaposed with the material/books that have been published as critical commentary and/or exegesis on some of these other modern writings.

It's maybe not so obvious to some of us what your larger point about this is.

As I said towards the beginning of this thread...the Book of Mormon in some respects is unique/different/set apart from other scriptural/sacred texts that have been produced in recent times. To me, that makes the Book of Mormon worth a look. And a second look...

Worthy of taking it down off the shelf and giving it a run through and real study over and over again. When I do, I am...as you say..."amazed" at the breadth and depth of this book which came out of nineteenth century New England. THAT is quite a story in and of itself. Story of the plates. Retrieval. Translation. Publication. Wide distribution. Tool for conversion to Christ, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

When I kept up with it as it was going on in real time there was something that didn't settle just right with me in regards to what I was reading from Jenkins, but to be honest I can't remember WHAT it was in any detail.

Third version.

Hi Lemmie, sorry I'm not responding much...well, I guess this counts...you your posts. I'm not seeing anything of value to converse with you about. But I do read your posts. I didn't want you to think I was just ignoring you.

Regards,
MG

Oh please, mg, please please please just ignore me!



It's completely obvious why you feel the need to repeatedly say you don't see anything of value. Nothing new there, it's a typical strategy you use when you are caught in your cycle of intellectual dishonesty. Keep protesting too much though.

Back to the topic at hand, I read the addition to the Jenkins list of links from above, it is well worth the read. In it he refers to work done by Robert Bishop and the concept of bias, which seems quite pertinent to this thread:

Bishop is especially good on the temptation to believe junk science when it is presented in scientific sounding language that impresses people who don’t understand real methodologies:

[Robert Bishop wrote:]"It sounds and looks “sciencey,” to use Sharon Hill’s lovely term, but that’s it. Cryptozoologists typically don’t begin with a theory to generate a viable hypothesis, deduce consequences from that hypothesis (predictions), test those consequences, analyze the data, check for errors, critically sift assumptions, and so forth. Rather, they begin with a bias (belief in the existence of a mystery creature such as Bigfoot) and then hunt for evidence to substantiate their belief. This leads cryptozoologists to force what they find to fit into their pre-established expectations. Moreover, they accept any evidence that remotely supports their belief no matter how weak or questionable, and discount any contrary evidence no matter how strong.

Good scientists, by contrast, practice healthy skepticism toward their hypotheses, evidence, and assumptions, even though they have some reasons for confidence in the theory that they are working with. They throw out weak or questionable evidence and take contrary evidence very seriously. Sure, scientists also have their expectations, but they critically assess the evidence for whether it genuinely supports the hypothesis or not. … Cryptozoologists make a number of unfounded assumptions which they never challenge; scientists hold their assumptions as only provisionally true and return to critically examining their assumptions on occasion and sometimes frequently."

Bishop’s main focus is on trying to educate Americans – and other “advanced” (!) peoples – about the methods of good science and scholarship.

[bolding added by me.]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... le-beasts/

[_Chap]

Within that exchange (Hamblin and Jenkins) can you let me know which parts were biased and/or prejudiced, and how this affected the outcome or conclusions?

I'm going to go back and read it again. by the way, does anyone know if Jenkins' considers himself to be a practicing Christian?

He obviously believes Jesus Christ existed. Does he view him as Savior/God?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... cal-jesus/

Whether he does or doesn't would possibly inform any biases/prejudices he may have or not have as he goes about his scholarly ways?

Regards,
MG

Just read WHAT HE SAYS, and see if you can find any faults in:

1. The validity of his arguments.

2. The evidence he uses.

If you can't, then why wouldn't you accept his conclusions? Oh yes, because of your 'biases/prejudices', I suppose. Figures.

[_Maksutov]

Jenkins has biases but not Hamblin?

Exactly. You'll notice Mg has done his typical rewrite since being called on it.

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced. He will probably not be willing...or even able...to tell/explain those biases/prejudices to you. They're built up over a lifetime. We/he may not even be fully aware of what those biases/prejudices might be...or at least fully be able to articulate what they are, or are no.

I suppose we'd have to go back and read/look at the whole interchange again in detail. All I was saying is that I don't think we can underestimate the effect that biases/prejudices may play as we communicate with each other.

Mg's whole rant about Jenkins' biases and nothing about Hamblin's (until caught) is a great object lesson for ihaq's number 6 on his intellectual dishonesty list:

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

Right now I'm reading Lynn Packer's book on Paul Dunn. MG is the reincarnation of Dunn's oily, sanctimonious and manipulative inventiveness. I think both Dunn and MG would be honored when I say that they both remind me of Joseph Smith, Jr.

[_mentalgymnast]

Just read WHAT HE SAYS, and see if you can find any faults in:

1. The validity of his arguments.

2. The evidence he uses.

If you can't, then why wouldn't you accept his conclusions? Oh yes, because of your 'biases/prejudices', I suppose. Figures.

Back to a question I asked earlier:

by the way, does anyone know if Jenkins' considers himself to be a practicing Christian?

He obviously believes Jesus Christ existed. Does he view him as Savior/God?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... cal-jesus/

Whether he does or doesn't would possibly inform any biases/prejudices he may have or not have as he goes about his scholarly ways/work?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG is...

I'm going to hold to what I said earlier...

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

MG is...

I'm going to hold to what I said earlier...

Regards,
MG

You should feel honored.

[_mentalgymnast]

...please, mg...just ignore me!

I don't have anyone on ignore. Some folks that I have limited productive conversation with...yes.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

[
You should feel honored.

Earlier:

I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.

I think that is the best continued course of action. That leaves things wide open for you.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

[
You should feel honored.

Earlier:

I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.

I think that is the best continued course of action. That leaves things wide open for you.

Regards,
MG

So how about if we don't play your little games of duck and dodge and distort? You know, things like editing other people's words, lying about what happens in threads, dismissing whole categories of study without justification, etc. etc. What do you say?