Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

Why should we choose to believe if we don't know?

That's actually a very good question. I don't know that I can answer it without a default to the position that Faith...first principle of the Gospel...is somehow integral to our progression.

Faith/hope is a choice. I do agree, however, that faith should not be misplaced.

You miss that your faith was never in God, but an idea of God told to you by other people. This is true of over a billion Muslims. This same faith can be found in Hinduism, Scientology, etc.

[_cognitiveharmony]

...most recent holy books consist of doctrinal expositions, ritual instructions, moral codes, scriptural commentary, or devotional poetry. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, is narrative—a much rarer genre of religious writing.

So what? Goya asked you repeatedly what this is supposed to signify and you haven't answered yet as far as I can tell.

Most world scriptures were created over decades, if not centuries, often under rather obscure circumstances, and they achieved their current form only after lengthy processes of editing and canonization.

Again, so what? What's the point? The Book of Mormon could very easily fit into this category as it's been edited extensively over the decades. The church has canonized and de-canonized lots of scripture along the way, most recently the book of Bednar...

Smith dictated over six hundred manuscript pages to his scribes...from April through June 1829.

Maybe, maybe not, you can't establish this as fact. But like I keep saying, so what? What's the point?

...very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin.

...you know the routine...so what? This book has had very little impact when looking at it in comparison with any other major religion. In most religious circles it's nothing more than an obscure footnote.

The overall point that I'm making in this thread and other threads over a period of time is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the CofJCofLDS. Without it, the church falls. OTOH, if the Book of Mormon is 'true' then all else...including issues and other controversies along the way...become peripheral to the central message/mission of the church.

Then why the vague and almost meaningless line of argumentation?

So, the point of this thread was simply to put the Book of Mormon on the table instead of up on the shelf and encourage investigation rather than placing permanent and/or insurmountable roadblocks in the way of opening the covers and reading the book with the intent/desire to gain a testimony of Jesus Christ and the great plan of happiness for God's children.

You realize that it would take compelling reasons and meaningful argumentation to do this right? No amount of special pleading is going to change this.

But I realize that his all sounds like gibberish and gobbledygook to those that have biases/prejudices that get in the way. If one doesn't believe and/or hope in a creator/God, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one doubts the reality of continued existence after death as an individual entity, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one is biased in thinking that God's prophets must be closer to 'perfect' than 'weak', that will create a bias/prejudice when a prophet comes along who IS weak in ways that we might not expect/accept. If one let's the theory of evolution get in the way of US and why we're here...and questioning if there might not be some grander purpose...then that bias towards secular/humanistic thought is going to act as a bias towards spiritual things...consciously or not.

I don't think that you mean this offensively but scholarship is governed by methodologies designed to avoid bias. Scholar's recognize the possibility of bias and define their methodology specifically to avoid this. They then go through a rigorous process in which other scholars who may or may not have differing biases review their work for consistency and accuracy. So directing comments like this at a scholar such as Jenkins is not only personally insulting to him, it's insulting to academic scholarship in general. Even so, I'm sure that Jenkins would be thrilled if you could point out the flaws in his methodology and exactly where his bias has flawed his reasoning.

The list could go on. And the thing is, on this board the 'herd' mentality is pretty much of one mind and one heart, generally speaking. Yes, there are some folks here that are open Christian thought/belief/hope/teachings...but overall there is a general and STRONG bias/prejudice towards religion and God/Christ belief that acts as an insurmountable barrier in any conversation with the 'other'...one that is open to further exploration and thought in regards to possibilities/plausibility. There is a line in the sand and it can't be crossed. And when the herd says what will be...that will be. The 'other' is literally an invader. An outsider. A foreigner.

I know of no-one on this board that has reached his/her conclusion about God or Mormonism without extensive research, contemplation and usually anguish. They're not biased because of the positions that they now hold. They've simply reached their own conclusions about God and religion and these conclusions naturally inform their world view. So I would disagree that our biases are what prevent us from being open to "religion and God/Christ belief", but rather, the lack of a compelling argument. I'm all ears if you've got something substantive to say about this, but what I've heard so far has been pretty weak.

[_cognitiveharmony]

That's actually a very good question. I don't know that I can answer it without a default to the position that Faith...first principle of the Gospel...is somehow integral to our progression.

MG, I could ask you to explain how faith is integral to our progression but I'm afraid I'd be being disingenuous. I know there's no way that you could possibly answer that to anyone's satisfaction and I'm quite sure you're also aware that you couldn't. With that being said, why even make statements like this? It's a total non starter.

[_canpakes]

The overall point that I'm making in this thread and other threads over a period of time is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the CofJCofLDS. Without it, the church falls

It's the keystone only in the sense that it is a requirement to believe that it is historical in order to lend credence to the Church being 'true'. Past that, I'm not seeing that it defines the present-day Church as far as doctrine or practice, as the modern-day Church is more defined by D&C and PoGP. You may have a different opinion on that. I'd like to hear it if so.

OTOH, if the Book of Mormon is 'true' then all else...including issues and other controversies along the way...become peripheral to the central message/mission of the church.

No, because of what I just stated.

In other words, the Book of Mormon could be true, but every other utterance from Joseph Smith could be balderdash or psychotic ramblings. Yet that balderdash then becomes what the Church is, centrally, via it's self-defined activities and proclamations of what is 'important'. There's simply no guarantee implicit in the Book's supposed historicity that then guarantees that all doctrine to follow - what essentially defines the modern Church - is rooted in any sort of reality or God-given 'authority'.

As with the previous statement, you might not disagree with this, so let's discuss if that's the case.

To believe in and plant the Book of Mormon in the soil of 'God's word' is a choice. But it's not a blind/ignorant choice. It's based on data...for and against. How else can a choice be made? Personal biases/prejudices/assumptions play a role in how one views the Book of Mormon within the larger/universal/global picture of mankind and world history...

Sure. This is how it works with everything, right?

...and what one might consider to be a sensible view of eternity and life after death.

Sensible? Or perhaps... more familiar?

I actually don't see much sensibility in the Plan of Salvation. But I also don't see much about the PoS presented from within the Book of Mormon anyway. This seems more rooted in things like D&C, the PoGP, and the KFD. So how would this perceived sensibility about the LDS PoS validate the Book of Mormon?

So, the point of this thread was simply to put the Book of Mormon on the table instead of up on the shelf and encourage investigation rather than placing permanent and/or insurmountable roadblocks in the way of opening the covers and reading the book with the intent/desire to gain a testimony of Jesus Christ and the great plan of happiness for God's children.

And this would seem to be what many folks have done. Would you not agree? Don't you think that most folks here have read through the Book at least once, and possibly many times?

If they are not reaching the same conclusion as you, for reasons ranging from the Great Plan of Happiness not really being a part of the Book to other reasons rooted in basic historicity (or lack of), how many more times should they read the Book in order to gain the preferred testimony of historicity?

But I realize that his all sounds like gibberish and gobbledygook to those that have biases/prejudices that get in the way. If one doesn't believe and/or hope in a creator/God, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one doubts the reality of continued existence after death as an individual entity, that's going to act as a bias...consciously or not. If one is biased in thinking that God's prophets must be closer to 'perfect' than 'weak', that will create a bias/prejudice when a prophet comes along who IS weak in ways that we might not expect/accept. If one let's the theory of evolution get in the way of US and why we're here...and questioning if there might not be some grander purpose...then that bias towards secular/humanistic thought is going to act as a bias towards spiritual things...consciously or not.

We know that everyone has a bias. Therefore, all readers will approach the Book with a bias. This says nothing about the Book's historicity (or lack of), which can be examined by biased individuals regardless. As can any subject, with conclusions to be reached that can be agreed on by folks with different biases. So there's no gibberish or gobbledygook here, just the observations of people and fact that can lead to a conclusion one way or the other.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that folks who don't reach the same conclusion about the Book's historicity claim are doing so because of a bias. But that's no different than saying that your own acceptance of a historical Book is also due to a bias.

The list could go on. And the thing is, on this board the 'herd' mentality is pretty much of one mind and one heart, generally speaking.

Two things, here.

1. The phrase, 'herd mentality', has been so terribly over- and mis-used by board participant Amore that it carries a bit of bad 'bias' of its own. Perhaps use of a better descriptive term would be wise.

2. Would not any 'herd mentality' also exist within the community of LDS believers?

Yes, there are some folks here that are open Christian thought/belief/hope/teachings...but overall there is a general and STRONG bias/prejudice towards religion and God/Christ belief that acts as an insurmountable barrier in any conversation with the 'other'...one that is open to further exploration and thought in regards to possibilities/plausibility. There is a line in the sand and it can't be crossed. And when the herd says what will be...that will be. The 'other' is literally an invader. An outsider. A foreigner.

MG, I read the Jenkins-Hamblin debate several times. Neither of those two gents treated the other in the terms that you are using here. So I'm going to ask again what I've asked a few times before, but what you have not yet answered - what part of that exchange seemed obviously biased to you, and how do you feel that it affected the conclusion by either participant?

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm all ears if you've got something substantive to say about this, but what I've heard so far has been pretty weak.

What can I say if the follow up is simply going to be "so what?"

But I understand where you're coming from. You need hard evidence. Incontrovertible. Something you can really hang your hat on.

I can't do that for you. As I've said, when we each come head to head with issues/controversies we will come out the other end different people. Some for faith/belief. Some not so much.

It is what it is.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The overall point that I'm making in this thread and other threads over a period of time is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the CofJCofLDS. Without it, the church falls

It's the keystone only in the sense that it is a requirement to believe that it is historical in order to lend credence to the Church being 'true'. Past that, I'm not seeing that it defines the present-day Church as far as doctrine or practice, as the modern-day Church is more defined by D&C and PoGP. You may have a different opinion on that. I'd like to hear it if so.

If the church is 'true' it really doesn't matter whether or not those doctrines/practices are found in the Book of Mormon. And that pretty much sums up where I'm coming from. OTOH, if the Book of Mormon isn't 'true' then I would say that the other sources of doctrine/practice DO matter. It would be more than likely that they are from the mind of a man. The Book of Mormon is the 'artifact' of the restoration. Without it, the restoration is dead in the water. With it...if it's true/historical...the restoration is everything.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

The Book of Mormon is the 'artifact' of the restoration. Without it, the restoration is dead in the water. With it...if it's true/historical...the restoration is everything.

And you're saying that 1) since The Book of Mormon is a narrative, 2) has lots written about it, and, 3) was written in a short amount of time-- these all lend credibility to this idea that The Book of Mormon is scripture. Right?

Why, for example, is a narrative more likely to be scripture? Why would being written over a short period suggest scripture? Why would having a lot written about it signify that it's scripture?

You hinted that you put together some final synthesis that is bigger than these data. I can't find it.

I don't mean to be an idiot. I am just trying to understand your argument. So far, it's lost on me.

[_Lemmie]

I'm all ears if you've got something substantive to say about this, but what I've heard so far has been pretty weak.

What can I say if the follow up is simply going to be "so what?"

But I understand where you're coming from. You need hard evidence. Incontrovertible. Something you can really hang your hat on.

I can't do that for you. As I've said, when we each come head to head with issues/controversies we will come out the other end different people. Some for faith/belief. Some not so much.

It is what it is.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

You conveniently cut and pasted only a part of cognitiveharmony's paragraph, and your answer above conveniently neglects to respond to what ch was actually asking. Why do that? It's such an obvious tactic.

I know of no-one on this board that has reached his/her conclusion about God or Mormonism without extensive research, contemplation and usually anguish. They're not biased because of the positions that they now hold. They've simply reached their own conclusions about God and religion and these conclusions naturally inform their world view. So I would disagree that our biases are what prevent us from being open to "religion and God/Christ belief", but rather, the lack of a compelling argument. I'm all ears if you've got something substantive to say about this, but what I've heard so far has been pretty weak.

This paragraph reads to me as ch being all ears if you have something substantive to say about your bias accusations, in the context of arguing evidence. You've evaded answering anything about that for pages now, but your evasions, or 'bob and weave' as DrW put it, still say plenty about you.

Bottom line, what is it about the Jenkins-Hamblin exchanges that you find exhibits bias? You made the accusation, when will you answer the question?

[_mentalgymnast]

...I read the Jenkins-Hamblin debate several times. Neither of those two gents treated the other in the terms that you are using here. So I'm going to ask again what I've asked a few times before, but what you have not yet answered - what part of that exchange seemed obviously biased to you, and how do you feel that it affected the conclusion by either participant?

I don't know that we would necessarily rely on what was said between Jenkins and Hamblin as 'evidence' of bias. The fact is, they come from two different worlds with different beliefs/assumptions/biases. What I haven't been able to get a handle on is whether or not Jenkins may or may not have an implicit and/or hidden bias in regards to Christianity and whether or not he believes that Jesus is Savior/Redeemer. The way that Jenkins views Christ can't help but form either implicit and/or hidden biases as he researches and forms opinions in regards to those that are professed Christians. He may come across as being unbiased in what he says.

Earlier I mentioned that folks can cover/mask their bias/prejudice. The question, at least for me, is whether or not in some way/means/fashion that bias is going to manifest itself. I'm willing to concede that in the Jenkins/Hamblin debate that Jenkins and/or Hamblin were both being 'cordial' and 'fair', and even honest as far as they may not have falsified data/information, etc. The question is whether or not either one of them may have omitted data/information that could have been laid on the table. Whether that is or isn't the case, I don't know. Unless one is really an expert it probably isn't going to be anything that can be readily viewed/seen or picked up on by the average Joe.

It is rather obvious, however, that Jenkins was on his game.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

The question is whether or not either one of them may have omitted data/information that could have been laid on the table. Whether that is or isn't the case, I don't know. Unless one is really an expert it probably isn't going to be anything that can be readily viewed/seen or picked up on by the average Joe.

You're intimating dishonesty.