Three Powerful Books

[_Philo Sofee]

Honorontheos
Philo, did you read Hardy while still believing the Church's truth claims?

I was beginning to transition and looking for something that I might have missed. I found it, in Hardy. But what I missed was how full of personal bias it [the Book of Mormon] was, and Hardy handily pointed that out in great significance. It was not doctrine that Lehi's dream was a revelation of pure truth for all time, and all peoples, it was his own view. And Nephi's view did not align with it, and neither man were told anything more. They were allowed to have their own opinions. THERE IS THE KEY. Every single doctrine, experience, prayer, historic analysis, etc., is simply someone's opinion and interpretation, not fundamental universal truth from a God who wishes we had the truth. The Book of Mormon, even granting the reality of the so-called historic personalities as real people is just another book of someone's opinion from somewhere. Even Joseph Smith saying it is the most correct book is merely his own opinion. I have no reason anymore to believe that. There is no solid objective ground of truth and reality, let alone evidence, on the ground, real evidence, in any of the scriptures. Hardy's book finished yanking the rug out from under my feet. It was a light bulb moment. ALL scripture is simply some ancient person's opinion. I have no reason to give it any special status.

[_Stem]

A third one I would now add to the list:

A Case For the Book of Mormon (by Tad Callister)

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Book-Mormon ... 162972565X


Regards,
MG

Lol I was taking you seriously there for a minute.

[_honorentheos]

Honorontheos
Philo, did you read Hardy while still believing the Church's truth claims?

I was beginning to transition and looking for something that I might have missed. I found it, in Hardy. But what I missed was how full of personal bias it [the Book of Mormon] was, and Hardy handily pointed that out in great significance. It was not doctrine that Lehi's dream was a revelation of pure truth for all time, and all peoples, it was his own view. And Nephi's view did not align with it, and neither man were told anything more. They were allowed to have their own opinions. THERE IS THE KEY. Every single doctrine, experience, prayer, historic analysis, etc., is simply someone's opinion and interpretation, not fundamental universal truth from a God who wishes we had the truth. The Book of Mormon, even granting the reality of the so-called historic personalities as real people is just another book of someone's opinion from somewhere. Even Joseph Smith saying it is the most correct book is merely his own opinion. I have no reason anymore to believe that. There is no solid objective ground of truth and reality, let alone evidence, on the ground, real evidence, in any of the scriptures. Hardy's book finished yanking the rug out from under my feet. It was a light bulb moment. ALL scripture is simply some ancient person's opinion. I have no reason to give it any special status.

Hi Philo, thanks for sharing that. It's a perspective on the implications of Hardy's approach I hadn't considered before but it's interesting. Hardy lost me pretty quickly when, after a forward promising an approach that would place the Book of Mormon firmly within the category of great literature independent of it's claims to be historical, he based the literary approach on assuming they were historical persons and then went about trying to prove the authors were unique from each other by the most tenuous means possible. Since I had long since stopped believing the book was anything other than a product of the 19th C., his approach left me feeling cheated by a bit and switch. Darth J's efforts to contextualize the Book of Mormon within ancient Italy had more depth. I'm sure there are at least a half dozen or more posters who affiliate with this board who could have produced a more imaginatively fulfilling theory. His slavish need to ensure historicity and Smith's truth claims were preserved dragged it down.

I get why MG likes it. He like the idea of it. But given the conversations we've had over the years on the topic of this book - a book I read because he challenged someone on the board to do so - I don't think he actually thought about what it actually had to say. You are the only person I've heard talk about the book who was at least tentatively still active and open to the truth claims who read it and internalized what Hardy had to say in order to synthesize your own understanding of it.

MG is almost certainly not going to engage with anyone on the content of his "powerful" books or you might find that out for yourself.

[_Mormonicious]

No book about Mormons or Mormonism will have value until the first question is answered. Where did the Book of Mormon take place? Until the Mormon corporation addresses that simple requirement, nothing about the Book of Mormon can be stated. AND ONLY the Mormon corporation can state where the lands of the Book of Mormon are.

Where, oh where, did my little jaradites, nephites and/or lamanites go? Oh where, oh where can they be? South America, no evidence, Central America, no evidence, North America, well at least Horny Holy Joe said it was so.

[_mentalgymnast]

It was not doctrine that Lehi's dream was a revelation of pure truth for all time, and all peoples, it was his own view.

How do you know? Looking at the basic elements of the dream, what causes you to think that the dream does not apply to mankind as a whole? And thus, doctrinal?

And Nephi's view did not align with it, and neither man were told anything more.

Wasn’t Nephi’s dream similar?

So how would you verify the difference between an opinion and a revelatory, doctrinal view?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

A third one I would now add to the list:

A Case For the Book of Mormon (by Tad Callister)

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Book-Mormon ... 162972565X


Regards,
MG

Lol I was taking you seriously there for a minute.

Yes, I’ve read some of the comments on Amazon in regards to this book. I know there are those who are already pre-dispositioned towards ignoring many of the evidences that point to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Truth be told, however, it was Callister’s book that I believe gives the best all around evidentiary basis/foundation for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

Have you read the whole book?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hardy's and Given's books are problematic at best and while they may serve to reinforce someone predisposed to believe, they do not hold up well to any sort of non-biased review.

Could not this assertion that you’ve made, “they may serve to reinforce someone predisposed to believe, they do not hold up well to any sort of non-biased review” be applied to books written describing Atheism as being the only reasonable game in town? Simply by changing “believe” to disbelieve? Doesn’t that make your point moot?

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
Wasn’t Nephi’s dream similar?

So how would you verify the difference between an opinion and a revelatory, doctrinal view?

Yes, because daddy Lehi had already discoursed to him about it thus implanted it in his head. Are you really that obtuse man?
I don't have any reason to distinguish anything, it's always been men who have written and interpreted knowledge. Once Hardy demonstrated that so powerfully, it was curtains for scripture even being in a separate category from all other writings ever done. Everything written is someone's opinion. Doctrine is someone's mere opinion. A revelation from God to someone is that someone's mere opinion, including the doctrine (opinion) of the revelation (opinion). There are no separate categories, hence no need to distinguish anything. Everything religious is man-made.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG
Wasn’t Nephi’s dream similar?

So how would you verify the difference between an opinion and a revelatory, doctrinal view?

Yes, because daddy Lehi had already discoursed to him about it thus implanted it in his head.

Who’s to say that both Lehi and Nephi were given the same vision/dream by God and thus it’s doctrinal?

I don't have any reason to distinguish anything, it's always been men who have written and interpreted knowledge.

Bingo! But who’s to say whether or not it’s always ONLY their own opinion or if it’s a doctrinal revelation from God?

Everything written is someone's opinion. Doctrine is someone's mere opinion. A revelation from God to someone is that someone's mere opinion, including the doctrine (opinion) of the revelation (opinion).

And that’s your opinion.

There are no separate categories, hence no need to distinguish anything. Everything religious is man-made.

And that’s where we disagree. I think there was much more to take away from Hardy’s book than what you took away. To each his own.

Did you read Callister‘s book cover to cover? Or did you simply read some of the commentary over Amazon?

Regards,
MG

[_Dr Moore]

I've purchased and read all 3 books.

Each author make some inspiring points here and there, but my review in summary is that none of them offers anything of genuine, objectively verifiable evidence to compel belief in the Book of Mormon as a literal history. You'll maybe say, well obviously - that can never be done, but then in their own way, each author builds up to that as the implied end result of their endeavor. As if to smuggle via brute force the idea that the plural of coincidence is evidence, or that the plural of anecdote is data.

I thought Callister's was the worst - some of his examples are just too deceptive in my view to be accidental. Hardy's was the best of the 3 books, in my opinion, and I think that is because he mostly kept his approach to devotional teaching opportunities. Givens reminds me of reading Bushman: the words are there, but the facts and the logic around them feel too often like conclusion before reason, masked in a "but actually, this is the reason before conclusion." To me it's off putting and tiring after long enough.

That's all I have to say about this, not interested in debating with you line by line in the markups I made in these books.