Maksutov wrote:...you don't know squat about these other groups and their texts.
I'm assuming that you are well read in regards to "these other groups and their texts." That's why I'm asking a simple question of IHAQ and also you...should you want to play.
Maksutov wrote:Grant Hardy's book is of no interest to me...the "world" knows all about the Book of Mormon, as much as it needs to in order to reject it.
I suspect that is the common consensus among many here.
My intent in the OP is to give others an opportunity to read Skousen's introduction, etc., and make of it what they will. It's a given, as you've just said, that nothing that is said/written would ever change your POV in regards to the Book of Mormon anyway. That isn't something that we didn't already know in advance.
The "world", huh? Your world? Of course.
Regards, MG
I've read dozens of books on the Book of Mormon before Grant Hardy showed up. And the book itself.
Do you want to go there with insults, MG? We can take it down to Outer Darkness and dance if you'd like. You might even learn something.
mentalgymnast wrote:I suspect that is the common consensus among many here.
Or as Franktalk would put it, "it is the common consensus among many on this earth."
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Maksutov wrote:...you don't know squat about these other groups and their texts.
I'm assuming that you are well read in regards to "these other groups and their texts." That's why I'm asking a simple question of IHAQ and also you...should you want to play.
So far, crickets and deflection.
Regards, MG
I am far better read in American religions than you are. Crickets and deflection are what you get after Jenkins reamed Hamblin for all the world to see. Crickets and deflection are what you get when you're told to "disconnect completely" because you're following dictatorial fanatics who don't believe in free agency. Crickets and deflection are what you get when you ask why Tom Monson is a prophet when he doesn't do anything but act like a doddering old executive.
I have a question wrote: I realise this may be difficult for you to accept but, [the Book of Mormon is] in the same group as the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the pronouncements of Warren Jeffs and for the same reason. A group of people have decided to follow those writings regardless of any provable historicity or divinity. It's only sacred an authoritative to those people who believe it is sacred and authoritative.
I have a question. Could you point me towards any books written by academics that would cause me to consider the writings of these men to be in any way comparable to the Book of Mormon? Say, someone along the line of a Terryl Givens or a Grant Hardy? I would be interested in reading any books that you could recommend that would show that the complexity/narrative of those 'holy writings' are in the same class as the Book of Mormon.
Maksutov wrote:Crickets and deflection are what you get when you ask why Tom Monson is a prophet when he doesn't do anything but act like a doddering old executive.
With a fetish for elderly widows.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
mentalgymnast wrote: I have a question. Could you point me towards any books written by academics that would cause me to consider the writings of these men to be in any way comparable to the Book of Mormon? Say, someone along the line of a Terryl Givens or a Grant Hardy? I would be interested in reading any books that you could recommend that would show that the complexity/narrative of those 'holy writings' are in the same class as the Book of Mormon.
Regards, MG
So you're too lazy to do any reading yourself. But we're supposed to read every insipid Mopologist that you think worthy of note. No.
fetchface wrote:MG, I'm still waiting for your special pleading for excluding the Koran from your reasoning. Let's complete this fallacious circle.
This thread was started by me. I've asked a question that I would like to have answered. I will be HAPPY to go another direction when and after I am not hearing crickets in response to the question(s) I've asked.
So put this one on hold...we can come back to it. OK?
I open to your contribution to the question I'm asking of others. I think I've asked it in a couple of different forms/ways so far. Take a stab at it?
Of course.