Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

OK, I understand what you're saying. So, concentrating on this thought, my next question must be to ask you if you subscribe to a literal reading of the Bible? In other words, are all stories within - like that of the Tower of Babel - interpreted by yourself as historically true?

I am asking so that I can better understand your 'ground'.

A trap! This question is basically and either/or. The Book of Mormon refers to the folks coming out of the Tower of Babel:

Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (Ether 1:33).
https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1998/01/the- ... l?lang=eng

Sooo... I am caught between a rock and a hard place. One of my brothers is a linguist. I've talked to him in reference to the Tower of Babel and the languages being changed/confused from that point on, etc. He said basically, "Nope".

You can see the problem. From a faithful perspective that leaves only one real choice: Incomplete information, whether it be scriptural and/or scientific/historical. Does it present a degree of cog dis? Sure. If you read the Ensign link embedded within this post you will see that the whole article results in a major cog dis if one is going to go with the observable evidence...or non-evidence...of a worldwide flood at the time that Noah was purported to have built an ark, etc.

Regards,
MG

P.S.-just starting this morning when I type the letter M and the letter G at the end of my posts it's coming out "mentalgymnast". What gives with that Sabotage?

[_mentalgymnast]

[I assume that mentalgymnast is not going to take us over the frontier into bizarristan, where there existed some amazingly decisive piece of evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon that BOTH Hamblin and Jenkins were too biased or prejudiced to take into account?

I really hope that assumption is correct ... but with mentalgymnast, who knows where the next back-flip will take him?]

Hi Chap, I've said multiple times on this board that when I throw something against the wall and I can see that it doesn't stick...then it doesn't stick. It becomes rather obvious. But as I've also said I am one to look at possibilities. Sometimes one or more of two...three... four or more possibilities might have to be thrown out. I've conceded a couple of points recently.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

[I assume that mentalgymnast is not going to take us over the frontier into bizarristan, where there existed some amazingly decisive piece of evidence in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon that BOTH Hamblin and Jenkins were too biased or prejudiced to take into account?

I really hope that assumption is correct ... but with mentalgymnast, who knows where the next back-flip will take him?]

Hi Chap, I've said multiple times on this board that when I throw something against the wall and I can see that it doesn't stick...then it doesn't stick. It becomes rather obvious. But as I've also said I am one to look at possibilities. Sometimes one or more of two...three... four or more possibilities might have to be thrown out. I've conceded a couple of points recently.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Well, mentalgymnast, I am not entirely clear what you mean, but unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to take it that what 'didn't stick to the wall' in this case was your attempt to suggest that Jenkin's demolition of Hamblin on the question of Book of Mormon historicity was somehow rendered moot by the possibility that Jenkins might have been harboring hidden 'biases or prejudices'.

Please let me know if I am wrong. Otherwise, silence will signify assent.

[_Goya]

Hi Chap, I've said multiple times on this board that when I throw something against the wall and I can see that it doesn't stick...then it doesn't stick. It becomes rather obvious. But as I've also said I am one to look at possibilities. Sometimes one or more of two...three... four or more possibilities might have to be thrown out. I've conceded a couple of points recently.

Regards,
MG

MG, you remind us often of the things you say about yourself.

[_Sethbag]

Hi Chap, I've said multiple times on this board that when I throw something against the wall and I can see that it doesn't stick...then it doesn't stick. It becomes rather obvious. But as I've also said I am one to look at possibilities. Sometimes one or more of two...three... four or more possibilities might have to be thrown out. I've conceded a couple of points recently. [emphasis added]

Regards,
mentalgymnast

I know you conceded that you were wrong to drink Snapple iced tea and claim nevertheless to obey the Word of Wisdom. Given your overall favorable view of Mormonism, however, I think this is like defending a command economy overall while conceding the Soviets were wrong on the appropriate price for black bread in the state-run stores.

You could probably concede any number of points regarding Mormonism, save the one that really matters, ie: that it isn't really true.

[Guest]

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.

I don't really see how other issues and controversies fall by the wayside. How, for example, does Joseph Smith's polygamy become less problematic if the Book of Mormon were true?

There are all kinds of shenanigans in Mormon history that would still be problematic, irrespective of the status of the Book of Mormon.

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

The way I see it, you were taught what you believed as a child. The way you post, however, shows that you are very fond of trying to reverse engineer "data" to prove your beliefs are accurate.

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.

Lookit. The Book of Mormon is going to stay on my "shelf" for reasons of archaeology. It isn't even so much that no evidence has been found in support of the Book of Mormon. At least none that is a slam drunk. Rather, in order for the Book of Mormon to be true, every single solitary shred of archaeological evidence we have for the Americas would have to be tossed aside to accommodate the Book of Mormon narrative.

I see no reason whatsoever to read the Book of Mormon with an eye towards its historicity as all the evidence we have currently suggests strongly the Book of Mormon is fiction. However, reading the Book of Mormon for its message in lieu of its historicity would yield far more interesting ideas, I think. But to sever the Book of Mormon from literal belief in its historicity will be difficult. It's a shame, really. Y'all should just treat it as parable and move along.

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 have no use for gods or saviors, myself. But I do find value in all texts. And I believe those texts can help some people live a better and happier life. That said, I can still enjoy the Christian tradition and philosophy without having to be burdened by messianic baggage.

So, what does that say about my biases?

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.

An alien. Not to be trusted. To be marked up and stamped as an undesirable.

A virus which must be wiped out through any means available.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Oh, stop it. Personally, I try to keep believing that you aren't trolling. I think you are sincere. But it is so frustrating to tell someone that same thing over and over again, only to have them ignore it and claim you didn't answer them. The book suggestions are a clear example. Grindael linked you to apologetic works on Urantia, but you continued to insist no one answered your questions.

So, I give up. *shrug*

(edited for spelling)

[_Philo Sofee]

Because of this thread I am in the process of rereading the entire exchange between Jenkins and Hamblin. And I do see Jenkins having a bias. It's the bias of actual real warranted evidence to support a claim. And that's the only valid bias that is possible to have as a real scholar. The Book of Mormon simply doesn't have that. That is why the academy does not take it seriously. It is also why LDS apologetics can not get academic published materials on the reality of the Book of Mormon to the rest of the world's scholarship. It has no validity as having actual historical happenings. It's that simple.

[_mentalgymnast]

...why are you only concerned with Jenkins's bias? What about Hamblin's?

Hi brotherjake,

Of course Hamblin would have his own biases and prejudices. His are rather obvious, aren't they? I think in some of my recent posts I've mentioned that they both would have their own set of biases/prejudices. It's really kind of a no brainer, isn't it?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...I am going to take it that what 'didn't stick to the wall' in this case was your attempt to suggest that Jenkin's demolition of Hamblin on the question of Book of Mormon historicity was somehow rendered moot by the possibility that Jenkins might have been harboring hidden 'biases or prejudices'.

Please let me know if I am wrong. Otherwise, silence will signify assent.

I don't think that I ever said that Jenkins' either did or didn't have the upper hand in the interchange between him and Hamblin. Did I say that? Or did I say that the conversation between them was rendered moot because Jenkins and Hamblin have their biases/prejudices?

What I did say is that baises/prejudices will inform where one is coming from and the operations of their mind either consciously or unconsciously. I think I'm on fairly good footing with that.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

mentalgymnast, you remind us often of the things you say about yourself.

I do point out when I've said something repeatedly, yes. There may be newcomers. It's important to allow for them...and also folks like me that have rememberers that don't always remember.

Regards,
MG