Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_grindael]

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.

BLATANT APOLOGY.

Please explain IN DETAIL, how Approaches is "one sided". And what does that even mean, besides being apologist mumbo jumbo?

[_grindael]

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.

AD HOMINEM BS

I’m not as preoccupied with labeling bias as you seem to be. Apologists of all people like to label things biased. Their definition is usually circular (the same for their anti-Mormon label); anything that challenges their faith is anti-Mormon and biased. For me, everything is evidence and strength of argument, no matter who says it. To dwell on bias is ad hominem. Some apologists think that since everyone is biased that gives them permission to write faith promoting history.

Not only is objectivity impossible, it’s not even desirable. Some discussions of objectivity (especially by postmodernists) define it in such a way as to be humanly impossible. There are many definitions of objectivity, but I think people usually mean fair. I want historians to be critical, but fair and balanced. Scholars have a right to take sides and defend their thesis with the best evidence and arguments they can muster. This is how scholarship works. In time, the weaker theories fade and the stronger ones survive. So your game of trying to determine the degree of bias is a waste of time. The proper thing to do is to judge the strength of the evidence and arguments. Nothing else matters. To focus on bias is ad hominem.

What MentalGSB NEVER HAS: "evidence and strength of argument". What Mental always has: BS.

[_grindael]

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.

MG

YAWN

It isn't "true" and has been proven false over and over again. But keep on stroking yourself. You're not fooling anyone with these masturbation exercises.

[Guest]

But I've said over and over again throughout these threads that I think there are reasons...at least there are for me...to adhere to and give the benefit of a [sic] doubt to the message/mission of the LDS Church and its foundational scripture, the Book of Mormon.

MG

WE KNOW

We all know you are a Mormon Apologist. Repeating THIS over and over again but at the same time claiming you are open to anything other than this conclusion is why you are so disingenuous.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... -the-doubt

[Guest]

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,
mentalgymnast

I will take that answer to mean that you are a reluctant Biblical literalist, then. In other words, there are items and events within the Bible that your senses tell you should not be seen as literal truth, but you cannot dismiss it as such. It would seem that one of the reasons (perhaps the primary driving reason) as to your decision to not conclude is tied to the fact that drawing a conclusion about those Biblical events then forces the question of Book of Mormon historicity. Would this interpretation be correct?

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?

I noticed that a few days ago as well. Very odd. What if I was trying to refer to magnesium by its chemical symbol in a post elsewhere? : )

[_grindael]

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.


MG

GOBBLEDYGOOK!!!

You got this right, you are full of the stuff! Again, see Dan's quote on Bias. Claiming bias is inherently a negative and therefore ad homenim. But you are way too MENTALly challenged to get this. But it's the ONLY WAY you can deal with the avalanche of evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is a fraud and must keep you up at night and drive you to repeatedly post this kind of BS here. Oh the poor weak willed Jo Smith! All those women. Who can blame him for becoming a serial adulterer? Is that our "grander purpose" in the CK? Just some advice, (via Brigham Young) don't bring your wife to meet Jo in the Spirit world and let them be alone together. But then, you are in so deep you will probably be egging him on.

[_canpakes]

Do you know whether any of those books are actually critical commentary and exegesis on Urantia? Do any of those books actually dig deep enough into the literary structure and cohesiveness of narrative to support the thesis/possibility that The Urantia Book has a supernatural origin? (In other words's, by comparison, as I've read Hardy and Givens it's given me pause to simply brush off the Book of Mormon as a product of Joseph Smith.)

MG -

It looks like a few of these examine the possible sources of the Urantia book's material but firm conclusions are hard to determine. But keep in mind that these attempts look at explaining the origins through natural means - not by inventing or presupposing supernatural methods. In a way, one could adopt your own processing methodology and conclude that because there has been no definitive conclusion on a natural and ordinary (i.e. not supernatural) source that there must be a supernatural origin - or at least it cannot be conclusively ruled out, correct?

However, I'd again ask why an examination of material like the Book of Mormon by other sources/authors that presupposes a supernatural origin conveys authority to that conclusion based on what may be nothing more than an imjected 'complexity'. Any number of competent authors could make as complex an origin theory as anyone and add layers of non-original 'complexity' to the Book of Mormon, given the time. I want to know why the content proposed by Hardy or Skousen bolsters authenticity of the Book of Mormon in your eyes beyond the fact that their theories or commentary simply exist.

[_mentalgymnast]

Temper, temper, mentalgymnast. You're starting to lose it.

Not to worry. Our neighbor's cat is probably not doing too well this morning, but I'm sure Coco will come through OK. She is on life three or four at this point. So it's all good. I just appreciate your concern. That helps.

Although as I'm typing I'm feeling that ol' passive aggressive kicking in...

And you 'remember' something that's not accurate, but you're 'sure not going to go back' and confirm your inaccuracy? Another typical act of intellectual dishonesty on your part. It's interesting you bring things up and when others respond in a way you don't like, suddenly they are not exchanging ideas or having a conversation. That's called pouting, mentalgymnast, not discussion.

Thanks again, Lemmie, for your continued interest in my well being and wanting me to be a better person. I need to concentrate more on getting my thinker to think better. That's one of the reasons I participate on this board. Your continued concern will only help me to improve.

Thanks much,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

[

We all know you are a Mormon Apologist.

Hi grindael,

Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll remind everyone the Book of Mormon was originally written as a novel, and Joseph Smith attempted to sell it's copyright. If it were that important Mr. Smith wouldn't have tried to give it away for 30 pieces of silver.

- Doc