Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lloyd Dobler]

MG wrote, "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."

This is what kills me MG. You want to believe the church is true and the Book of Mormon is historical so you dismiss (or hold in some mental limbo so what's the diff) something as massively, obviously and absolutely stupid as the tower of babel as "It is what it is" while at the same time totally accepting something like chiasmus as real, concrete evidence for the Book of Mormon. You ignore the MANY big problems or otherwise dismiss them as having any real consequence on you opinion of a historical Book of Mormon but then bank on stuff like chiasmus and defend it (like in a thread from a couple few months ago).

I honestly don't get it. I don't get how you think the approach of minimizing the big evidence against a historical Book of Mormon while maximizing the small evidence for the Book of Mormon is in any way a honest and logical way to go about coming to a god damn conclusion.

Serious question. Do you want to come to a conclusion? Are you good just holding crap like the Tower of Babel up in the air while doubling down and banking on the Book of Mormon chiasmus writing of some dude who wrote some stuff when he got off his mission from like 20 years ago(if I remember correctly) until you die? I don't like accusing you of playing some kind of game but what else do you think your process looks like?

If you are not serious and your participation on the board is some sort of sport damned hobby or you are some apologist who is jacking with everybody, then I get it. But if you really are as sincere and serious as you say over and over again.......then bro how you roll ain't healthy and it's not nice. It seems obvious you can do way better than just saying it is what it is and then carrying on with your schtick.

Even in your above quote you say, "if the Book of Mormon is scripture" and then you work backwards causing you to drop an it
is what it is on the Bible problems that affect a historical Book of Mormon. How do you justify this kind of conclusion before the investigation approach and still think you are honestly evaluating a historical Book of Mormon?

It really is not fair to just dismiss someone bringing up the Tower of Babel as a problem you need to deal with and explain as "it is what it is" while trotting out crap like chiasmus and apparently the fact that you think a lot of Mormon academics have written a lot from Oxford press or whatever somehow means that maybe there is something to this whole Book of Mormon......which means of course that ......maybe it is true! Is maybe the Book of Mormon being true good enough for you or do you know the Book of Mormon is historical? I would really like an answer to this question.

If you know the Book of Mormon is historical, then why do this? YOU ALREADY KNOW IT's TRUE and you already evaluate everything from this conclusion! What's the point? If you say you are honestly seeking and are open to it not being true, then why keep starting with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is already true? That undermines a fair evaluation of freaking ALL the evidence. Do you get how stupid this all is?

and yes, you got me again mg. son of a bitch. At least I'm two Blue Moons deep right now and in an Irish Pub waiting for my buddies to show up!

[Guest]

What a lying, crapfilled, utter ass you are.

Hi Lemmie. Thanks for your continued contributions to the substance of this thread.

Note of sarcasm...

Though I must admit this thread has gone all over the place. If other folks want to wrap it up and stop responding, that's cool with me. Until that happens, if there is something worth talking about...I'm cool with that to.

To be honest...oh, I've already said this...I really don't have much to talk with you about except to say "hi!" now and then when you jump in and do your thing.

Of all the people on this board, you are the one person I really don't think I could sit down and do lunch with. And there are very few that I would say that about. Of course, there are probably some here that would rather not sit down to lunch with me either. I understand.

I know, that's a character flaw on my part. But it is what it is.

Too much time expended on you...

Have a nice evening,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

and yes, you got me again mentalgymnast. son of a bitch. At least I'm two Blue Moons deep right now and in an Irish Pub waiting for my buddies to show up!

I hope I didn't drive you to drink! Have fun at the pub.

It might be well to converse when you're sober?

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I'm going to make a guess, Em Ghee. You were a seminary teacher.

[_Maksutov]

mentalgymnast wrote, "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."

This is what kills me mentalgymnast. You want to believe the church is true and the Book of Mormon is historical so you dismiss (or hold in some mental limbo so what's the diff) something as massively, obviously and absolutely stupid as the tower of babel as "It is what it is" while at the same time totally accepting something like chiasmus as real, concrete evidence for the Book of Mormon. You ignore the MANY big problems or otherwise dismiss them as having any real consequence on you opinion of a historical Book of Mormon but then bank on stuff like chiasmus and defend it (like in a thread from a couple few months ago).

I honestly don't get it. I don't get how you think the approach of minimizing the big evidence against a historical Book of Mormon while maximizing the small evidence for the Book of Mormon is in any way a honest and logical way to go about coming to a god damn conclusion.

Serious question. Do you want to come to a conclusion? Are you good just holding s*** like the Tower of Babel up in the air while doubling down and banking on the Book of Mormon chiasmus writing of some dude who wrote some stuff when he got off his mission from like 20 years ago(if I remember correctly) until you die? I don't like accusing you of playing some kind of game but what else do you think your process looks like?

If you are not serious and your participation on the board is some sort of sport f*****g hobby or you are some apologist who is jacking with everybody, then I get it. But if you really are as sincere and serious as you say over and over again.......then bro how you roll ain't healthy and it's not nice. It seems obvious you can do way better than just saying it is what it is and then carrying on with your schtick.

Even in your above quote you say, "if the Book of Mormon is scripture" and then you work backwards causing you to drop an it
is what it is on the Bible problems that affect a historical Book of Mormon. How do you justify this kind of conclusion before the investigation approach and still think you are honestly evaluating a historical Book of Mormon?

It really is not fair to just dismiss someone bringing up the Tower of Babel as a problem you need to deal with and explain as "it is what it is" while trotting out s*** like chiasmus and apparently the fact that you think a lot of Mormon academics have written a lot from Oxford press or whatever somehow means that maybe there is something to this whole Book of Mormon......which means of course that ......maybe it is true! Is maybe the Book of Mormon being true good enough for you or do you know the Book of Mormon is historical? I would really like an answer to this question.

If you know the Book of Mormon is historical, then why do this? YOU ALREADY KNOW IT's TRUE and you already evaluate everything from this conclusion! What's the point? If you say you are honestly seeking and are open to it not being true, then why keep starting with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is already true? That undermines a fair evaluation of freaking ALL the evidence. Do you get how stupid this all is?

and yes, you got me again mentalgymnast. son of a bitch. At least I'm two Blue Moons deep right now and in an Irish Pub waiting for my buddies to show up!

Piper Down?

[_sock puppet]

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

MG, thank you. I would like to ask a follow up question. I want you to suppose three propositions as being true about yourself that probably are not. Just hypothetically. Suppose your favorite color is red. You are a betting man. And you walk into a casino that has an unusual roulette wheel: 1/5 of the numbers on the wheel are red, and 4 out of 5 are black. So you place your bet, $500. Is it on red or on black?

(Hat tip to Philo Sofee.)

[_sock puppet]

I wonder if or when Mentalgymnast will accept that human beings are probably not really in the middle of it all. We're probably just a localized phenomenon that occurred here because the respective elements and conditions were here, and the development of life is something that follows the laws of the universe. There is probably life on other planets of the billions of billions of other stars out there, and they may well think the universe revolves around them, too.

Sethbag, do you consider our being self-aware beings to be a blessing or a curse (colloquially speaking, not literally)?

[_grindael]

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.

Of course he did. Here is the whining again. This is what I mean about hypocrisy and Mormon Apologists. Here is Mentalcase getting all worked up about civility, yet he calls everyone here who is a critic of Mormonism hypocrites who stand on tall buildings pointing the finger of scorn at everyone. But those who don’t like this and directly confront him about it are the villains. He’s simply a whiney little baby who throws pouty tantrums because he doesn’t like being confronted about his passive/aggressive attacks on every critic here. If you don’t like it, go the Celestial Forum where you can have the kind of conversation you want to. But see, he doesn’t want to do that, because he is an apologist and thinks he will somehow influence more people down here.

Yet, he can claim the he’s totally “civil” but make these comments:

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.

the antithesis of Samuel the Lamanite

You get down and dirty all on your own.

As Jesse Pinkman would say….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVR476WHmR8

You set the tone for every one of your passive/aggressive nonsensical apologist BS every time you post. INCIVILITY. Bitch.

[_grindael]

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.

And you advocate the Book of Mormon? You don't understand what "real" is. And your big picture? Not a global view, but simple self masturbation.

[_grindael]

Oh crap, I missed this. Here is what Mental is all worked up about:

You have seen grindael make expert use of large fonty [sic!!!!!!] words all over the place haven't you?

MG

Perhaps ol' mentalcase was gettin' all slang on us:

Fonty

adj. Being kick ass, cool, sweet, tight or any other good thing

Or is it,

another word for gay

for example ‘you fonty!’ or ‘your such a fonty crease’

http://definithing.com/fonty/

Do you know something I don't? Either way, I'm cool with it.

Nah, he just doesn't know how to properly use the words "large fonts".

i.e.: Make expert use of words in large fonts which he posts all over the place. (Still not accurate, they were strategically placed).