Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Maksutov]

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

"Author and proprietor".

[_mentalgymnast]

...you are a reluctant Biblical literalist, then.

No, I don't think I'd feel comfortable saying that. The Bible has too much baggage.

..there are items and events within the Bible that your senses tell you should not be seen as literal truth...

Yes.

...but you cannot dismiss it as such.

I can dismiss things in the Bible as being literal truth.

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.

I see the conflict and don't have a good resolution for that conflict within the traditional/orthodox LDS paradigm and/or way of thinking.

Regards,
MG

[_tkv]

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.

This thread hasn't been very good, and mg's subject is inaccurate, so why not add a little substance and mention some of Skousen's discussion from his editor's preface to his critical text ed'n of the Book of Mormon. He argues that the vocabulary of the Book of Mormon is old, that it comes from the 1500s and 1600s. He gives some examples in the preface, starting on page xxxvii (see mg's original link). According to Skousen, some old vocab is found in the KJV, so JSJr could have gotten it from his knowledge of the Bible. He gives an example of require (Enos 1:18; Ezra 8:22). Some are not found in the KJV. He gives four examples: but if, counsel, depart, detect. He also mentions retain, saying one Book of Mormon meaning isn't in the OED. I'm pretty sure he's given other examples in other publications. That's all from the preface.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.)

mentalgymnast -

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.

OK.

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?

That possibility is held open, yes. Must be? I'm not willing to go that far. That's where a certain degree of faith and a dash of ambiguity kick in.

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'.

Well, it doesn't hurt.

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.

Could you flesh this out a bit more? I'd like to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here.

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.

The first book I read after a period of questioning the Book of Mormon's authenticity to the point of believing like many here was Terryl Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon". It's been a number of years now since I read it. It was sort of a game changer for me in the sense that after reading his book I took the Book of Mormon off the shelf and put it on the table again and spent more time in between the covers of the Book of Mormon instead of outside of the covers looking for more 'dirt'. Although it wasn't as if I then ignored the issues, it's just that I looked at the Book of Mormon with 'fresh eyes' and with a new understanding that I didn't have before. Since then, the other works from Skousen, Hardy, and Brant Gardner have added to that repertoire of books that keep my eyes open to the possibilities of modern day scripture/revelation/restoration/belief in Christ/God, etc.

Hope that helps,
MG

[_canpakes]

.

I'm thinking that there was more than just one person on what I remember to be multiple threads (that had some connection or another to Hardy's book) that didn't want to take the time to read Hardy's book and wanted me to regurgitate parts/sections...stuff...so that they wouldn't have to. But I'm sure not going to go back and do a count!

MG -

There is a difference between the two situations.

In the first, you were asserting that Hardy et al had written on and exposed certain complexities about the Book of Mormon that were somewhat dependent on a subjective interpretation of things unsaid or helped by inserting additional information otherwise not included in the Book of Mormon. Some folks, including myself, were skeptical about that approach because it seems to grant certain liberties for claims that rely on information that isn't actually part of the Book itself. That being the case, you were asked for some examples of Hardy's complexity claims that you found to be compelling. This would be a pretty straightforward exercise if you do find Hardy's arguments about complexity compelling.

Within this thread, however, you are asking if any such sort of material exists for other religious texts like the Urantia book. I think that you are wanting to assume that such materials do not exist for other faiths in the same expository format as Hardy's materials concerning the Book of Mormon and that this disparity supposedly hints at something. But you are also disappointed that no-one will give examples of these 'other' works.

Where the two comparisons are dissimilar is that you are making a positive claim regarding Hardy and his book versus others here merely noting that such texts exist for other faiths without necessarily also trying to claim that those other books lend any additional credence to the religions that they relate to.

[_Goya]

Why, for example, is a narrative more likely to be scripture?

Anyway, I think that a book that has a linear history that shows real people experiencing the 'word of God' and opposition and sin/evil, etc., is much more relevant than a book fool of what are supposed to be inspirational homilies. The Bible is of course a narrative book of scripture on the whole. People. Events. Righteousness. Wickedness. Etc. If God was to place a book of scripture that has His stamp of approval on it I would think (my opinion people : smile: ) it would be in the form of narrative/story.

Everyone loves a story. : smile: We're built that way.

I'm gathering that no one says that a narrative is more likely to be scripture but you--and you think it's more likely because you like stories.

The Bible is not "a narrative book of scripture on the whole." It has huge portions that are anything but narrative (clearly more than half isn't). The D&C is not a narrative. You must hate the D&C. And it must be very unlikely to be scripture.

[_Lloyd Dobler]

...you are a reluctant Biblical literalist, then.

No, I don't think I'd feel comfortable saying that. The Bible has too much baggage.

..there are items and events within the Bible that your senses tell you should not be seen as literal truth...

Yes.

...but you cannot dismiss it as such.

I can dismiss things in the Bible as being literal truth.

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.

I see the conflict and don't have a good resolution for that conflict within the traditional/orthodox LDS paradigm and/or way of thinking.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

Why don't you have a good resolution for that conflict?

[_mentalgymnast]

As I said earlier, when you have a board like this and a sense of herd mentality and Alpha's wanting to rule the day...the loner is going to be in a situation where they find very little support.

WHINING.

Shall I continue...? Yes... Next...

Hey grindael, I think you can appreciate this.

I have this picture in my mind of Nephi's vision. GSB, the Tree, River, Mist of Darkness...and so forth. Those that are seeking the TofL are plodding along holding onto the rod of iron and seeking to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Looking up at the Great and Spacious Building there are those that are looking out the windows and shouting/mocking and so forth. But looking up on the rooftop what is observed? This bare chested dude with a white flowy hair and beard, body shaking back and forth, with a megaphone up to his mouth shouting LARGE FONTY and at times offensive words through his megaphone.

The antithesis of Samuel the Lamanite.

Just had to share it.

MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Why don't you have a good resolution for that conflict?

Ummm...because I don't? Isn't that usually the reason folks aren't able to resolve conflicts..because they haven't found the means to do so yet? Not that they're ignoring it or trying to evade resolving it...they just haven't.

But we're all working on resolving conflicts that might occur and/or be part of our lives, right? If we're not, we fall into the category of those that 'give up'.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

From http://overviewbible.com/books-of-bible-by-genre/

Books of the Bible (sorted by genre)


Law

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy


Narrative

Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts


Poetry

Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon (Song of Songs)
Lamentations


Prophecy

Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Revelation


Letters

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude