Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

I think this point can't be overstated enough given the context of the conversation.

Could/would you clarify and restate what you're referring to here? You seem to think it is quite important. We probably ought to have it in 'bright lights'.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

What imagery!! I'm also fascinated by the guy shouting "LARGE FONTY," as I have literally not the slightest idea what that means.

I said, "LARGE FONTY and at times offensive words". You have seen grindael make expert use of large fonty words all over the place haven't you? Let me help you further. Fonty is a play on the word 'font'. Look that one up if you need to.

Can't you see those LARGE font words coming out of his megaphone while he's standing on top of the GSB? Visualize there sister.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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

Funny, looking at the Book of Mormon with fresh eyes is what caused me to consider it a fabrication.

It can go both ways, admittedly. We see that right here on this board.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

mentalgymnast: 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.?

Goya: I can't answer for canpakes, but I believe there are more than a few of us who have read both Hardy and Givens.

Mak: Yes, but we're all biased.

mentalgymnast: Hi Mak, I may have it wrong...but if I'm remembering correctly you said that you hadn't and wouldn't read Hardy's book. Do I have that right?

Regards,
mentalgymnast

I have read dozens of books of Mormon apologetics, not to mention the history of the church, most of the journal of discourses, the scriptures themselves, and you think that I haven't read enough books on Mormonism to form an opinion? I've read far more on Mormonism than on any other group or religion. I get to say when I've read enough. Reading his introduction didn't show me anything new. I know that there are all kinds of little rabbit holes that you can dive down within any large religion's subcultures. Many Christian sects have examples of this, like the JWs, the SDAs, Reconstructionists, Dominionists, various revivalists, not to mention all the more or less independent figures like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts. Mormonism is a handful of organisms within a complex ecology of human groupings. Because you live so close to it, it appears much larger...and deeper...than it is.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

Again, Dr. Shades, I am asking whether or not Terrestrial Forum a place where we can carry on a civil conversation...or not? I guess I could move over to the Celestial Forum but I've gotten used to posting here because there seems to be more traffic and also a bit more free thought. And I get that...but where are we going to draw the line? A person makes an observation and/or statement and by default gets kicked in the butt?

I hoping others can see what is going on around here and might be willing to step in and call this crap for what it is? If not, oh well. Life goes on. by the way, I'm not whining. It's just that it's hard to carry on a civil conversation with so much static/noise.

I've sent you a private message.

Regards,
MG

[_malkie]

I've been reading this topic on and off for the past couple of days, and have become more than a little upset at the personal invective being heaped on MG.

I'm sorry that I haven't commented before now - I knew it was the right thing to do, but kept postponing as I'm busy trying to get my house back in order after being away for 6 months (poor excuse, but the best I have.

So, folks, call me a board nanny if you will, and report my nannying to the mods, but please consider the possibility that MG is a regular guy trying to make the best that he can of his life for him and his family.

He doesn't have all of the answers, and he's not consistent - i.e., he's human.

MG and I disagree about a lot of things, and that is unlikely to change any time soon (unless he comes over to the dark side )

Unlike many of you (perhaps most?), I've met MG in real life, looked in his eyes, shaken his hand, and listened to what he has to say. I've come away with the impression that he's one of the good guys, and that, at worst, he's likely a better man than I am.

Please consider a change in the way that you address a fellow human.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

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

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

MG: Yes.

canpakes: ...but you cannot dismiss it as such.

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

canpakes: 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.

MG: 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.

sock puppet: 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.

Here's the way I look at it currently. I'm going to shrink wrap it.

Whatever happened...happened (in the past). It is what it is (in the present). There is a creator/God (choice). There is purpose that is driven by 'eternity' (belief).

So...God communicates with his children. Various ways and means. The Bible. The Koran. Other scriptures that lead towards 'greater good'.

Conflicts between the Bible and the Book of Mormon and both with science. I subscribe to some of Blake Ostler's ideas with Expansion Theory. I am open to Midrash. After all, the plates were not used much during the translation process. All bets are off at that point. Joseph and his world are in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite/Lamanite/Jaradite peoples and their prophets are in the Book of Mormon. God and other beings are connected with the translation process. It is not all black and white. There are things we either don't know or don't understand when it comes to how/when and by what means God communicates with man.

Now, in regards to 'the flood' and the 'tower'. It's there. It is what it is. If the Book of Mormon is scripture, then I would have to assume that all is not what is seems in a binary/either or way. There's a mix. Man, God, others. Final product? Is it of God? Is He behind it and does it have His stamp of approval? That's what matters.

I think you would admit that there are logical reasons to believe and logical reasons to disbelieve. I do.

Belief becomes a REAL choice. So does disbelief. As I said earlier in the thread, how can there be REAL choice unless there are two viable and reasonable choices to choose between?

That's the short version. A lot of stuff in between the lines that I've had to consider and think about for many years after reading much, thinking much, and even throwing in a prayer or two along the way.

So, generally speaking...that's the way I see it. A lot of latitude. A lot of openness to more than 'one way to skin the cat'.

And it all comes back to what I've said multiple times. I try to look at what is REAL. The big picture. A global view.

Knowing that humans are in the middle of it all making good and not so good choices...and doing a LOT of stuff on their own. Prophets included. We are ALL agents unto ourselves. Nothing is perfectly 'correlated'...including scripture. It's a work in process. Evolution. Collaboration. Change. Progress.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Here's the way I look at it currently. I'm going to shrink wrap it.

Whatever happened...happened (in the past). It is what it is (in the present). There is a creator/God (choice). There is purpose that is driven by 'eternity' (belief).

So...God communicates with his children. Various ways and means. The Bible. The Koran. Other scriptures that lead towards 'greater good'.

Conflicts between the Bible and the Book of Mormon and both with science. I subscribe to some of Blake Ostler's ideas with Expansion Theory. I am open to Midrash. After all, the plates were not used much during the translation process. All bets are off at that point. Joseph and his world are in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite/Lamanite/Jaradite peoples and their prophets are in the Book of Mormon. God and other beings are connected with the translation process. It is not all black and white. There are things we either don't know or don't understand when it comes to how/when and by what means God communicates with man.

Now, in regards to 'the flood' and the 'tower'. It's there. It is what it is. If the Book of Mormon is scripture, then I would have to assume that all is not what is seems in a binary/either or way. There's a mix. Man, God, others. Final product? Is it of God? Is He behind it and does it have His stamp of approval? That's what matters.

I think you would admit that there are logical reasons to believe and logical reasons to disbelieve. I do.

Belief becomes a REAL choice. So does disbelief. As I said earlier in the thread, how can there be REAL choice unless there are two viable and reasonable choices to choose between?

That's the short version. A lot of stuff in between the lines that I've had to consider and think about for many years after reading much, thinking much, and even throwing in a prayer or two along the way.

So, generally speaking...that's the way I see it. A lot of latitude. A lot of openness to more than 'one way to skin the cat'.

And it all comes back to what I've said multiple times. I try to look at what is REAL. The big picture. A global view.

Knowing that humans are in the middle of it all making good and not so good choices...and doing a LOT of stuff on their own. Prophets included. We are ALL agents unto ourselves. Nothing is perfectly 'correlated'...including scripture. It's a work in process. Evolution. Collaboration. Change. Progress.

Regards,
mentalgymnast

That was great. I wish you would post like that all the time. There is much there that I can agree with.

[_Themis]

So...God communicates with his children. Various ways and means. The Bible. The Koran. Other scriptures that lead towards 'greater good'.

Text written by people we don't know is a poor way to try and communicate what one wants others to believe and do.

There are things we either don't know or don't understand when it comes to how/when and by what means God communicates with man.

More poor ways to communicate what one wants others to believe and do. This is exactly what the conman does. This is literally their livelihood here.

Now, in regards to 'the flood' and the 'tower'. It's there. It is what it is. If the Book of Mormon is scripture, then I would have to assume that all is not what is seems in a binary/either or way. There's a mix. Man, God, others. Final product? Is it of God? Is He behind it and does it have His stamp of approval? That's what matters.

You consistently miss what really matters. You are just rationalizing that since you can't know anything absolutely so you will believe it because you want to. What really matter is understanding you don't know anything absolutely and go with the evidence and forget about all the human claims of hell or telestial kingdom if you guess wrong. This is not a God to worship. That should be a big clue Mormonism is not of God.

I think you would admit that there are logical reasons to believe and logical reasons to disbelieve. I do.

You fail to provide logical reasons to believe. You believe because you want to and you know not believing will cause a lot of trouble in your life with family. Sensations from praying or other religious activities is not a logical reason to believe. Until you understand this you will never be truly open minded with your religion.

Belief becomes a REAL choice. So does disbelief. As I said earlier in the thread, how can there be REAL choice unless there are two viable and reasonable choices to choose between?

I lost the choice years ago. I know the physical evidence and why the spiritual is not reliable way to know anything objective. I cannot un-know this. I suspect we all have less choice then we think, and I suspect why you have little choice but to stay believing.

And it all comes back to what I've said multiple times. I try to look at what is REAL. The big picture. A global view.

That's one trait I have not seen from you. You ignore the problems with the spiritual and have chosen to avoid all the most important pieces of evidence regarding the LDS truth claims. I suspect the reasons controlling your choice has to do with some of the consequences you perceive if you become a non-believer. So I can understand why staying a believer might be best for keeping you happy. This tends to be true the older a person becomes who has been in their group for a long time.

[_mentalgymnast]

That was great. I wish you would post like that all the time. There is much there that I can agree with.

I'm the same person here in this post as I am anywhere else making other posts, Mak. The fact that you happen to agree 'much' with me here doesn't mean that just because you may not agree with me 'much' elsewhere you have to treat me uncivilly at those times.

But thanks for these limited/specific kind words. They are appreciated.

Regards,
MG