Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_spotlight]

But how can Santa visit all the children of the earth in one night? I don't know 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'.

It's this kind of "logic" that keeps me away from the church.

[_mentalgymnast]

.

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!

mentalgymnast -

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.

Hi canpakes,

I may respond further to this post, but first, may I ask you if you have read Grant Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon" all the way through? To the extent of figuratively and/or literally underlining points of interest, etc.?

by the way, I was talking to my wife earlier this morning and relating to her the various types/kinds of personalities on this board and I made the comment that you, specifically, were one of those that had an even handed/civil tone in your discourse. Even if, obviously, there are disagreements,etc.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

But how can Santa visit all the children of the earth in one night? I don't know 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'.

It's this kind of "logic" that keeps me away from the church.

You put God the Father and Jesus Christ in the same category/realm of bias/prejudice as you do Santa?

Regards,
MG

[_spotlight]

You put God the Father and Jesus Christ in the same category/realm of bias/prejudice as you do Santa?

No, that's what you do. I place Santa a little above.

[_Maksutov]

You put God the Father and Jesus Christ in the same category/realm of bias/prejudice as you do Santa?

No, that's what you do. I place Santa a little above.

Not many people have been killed in the name of Santa.

[_Lloyd Dobler]

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,
mentalgymnast

Sorry MG, maybe it will make more sense asked in this way. Why is it specifically hard for you to resolve this conflict?

[_sock puppet]

...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

Are you able to reconcile the conflict using a paradigm or way of thinking that is outside of LDS tradition/orthodoxy? If so, please explain in detail what paradigm/way of thinking that is and how it works, step by step, to permit you to make that reconciliation.

[_grindael]

Have a nice day.

MG

Every day is a nice day for me.

[_grindael]

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

This is typical mental... not an answer, just "because" he read it. He got "fresh eyes". Can anyone be more vague? Hi-larious.

[_mentalgymnast]

Sorry mentalgymnast, maybe it will make more sense asked in this way. Why is it specifically hard for you to resolve this conflict?

Hi Lloyd,

I'll check back later in regards to your post and sock puppet's. I've been out in the yard all morning helping my wife with yard work and cleaning out the pond. What a load of crap...literally. Too many trees and bushes around the pond. Out to work for the afternoon. Gotta eat lunch first.

Priority one.

Later,
MG