Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

For those that haven't read Royal Skousen's introduction to the The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content ... liest-text

By any measure, the Book of Mormon belongs in the select category of recent world scripture. First published in upstate New York in 1830,the book has been translated in its entirety into over seventy languages, with thirty more partial trans-lations and more than 140 million copies printed since 1830. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), or Mormons, consider the Book of Mormon a sacred revelation equal in authority to the Bible.The Book of Mormon is probably the most successful new scripture of the past few centuries, and while it can profitably be compared with other similar texts, there are at least two ways in which it is unusual. First, most recent holy books consist of doctrinal expositions, ritual instructions, moral codes, scriptural commentary, or devotional poetry. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, is narrative—a much rarer genre of religious writing.

Most world scriptures were created over decades, if not centuries, often under rather obscure circumstances, and they achieved their current form only after lengthy processes of editing and canoniza-tion. Nearly all of the Book of Mormon, as we have it, was revealed to the twenty-three-year-old Joseph Smith from April through June 1829. Several persons were eyewitnesses to the method by which Smith dictated over six hundred manuscript pages to his scribes. And in less than a year after the completion of the translation,the work was published and accepted by believers as authoritative scripture. Both of these distinguishing characteristics—its narrative and its production—are worth considering more fully.

A new addition to the library of world scripture is a relatively rare phenomenon. In every age there are individuals who claim revelations, some of which get committed to writing and eventually published, but very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

In his introduction does Skousen offer an explanation for why excerpts of the King James Version of the Bible have been copied and pasted into a canon that was supposedly written a thousand years earlier?

Also, i don't understand why you bolded some of it, please explain the point you are making?

[_mentalgymnast]

In his introduction does Skousen offer an explanation for why excerpts of the King James Version of the Bible have been copied and pasted into a canon that was supposedly written a thousand years earlier?

He does say this:

Of course, the greatest epic of all—in the eyes of Joseph Smith’s fellow Americans—was the Bible, and one of the first things they noticed was that the Book of Mormon sounded like the King James Version of the Bible. It was meant to be accepted as scripture in a culture saturated with biblical discourse. The relationship between the two books has yet to be explored fully. It has always been recognized that some sections The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text of the Book of Mormon feature long passages borrowed from the King James Version of Isaiah and Matthew; what is less obvious is that those quotations have often been subtly modified. The Book of Mormon in many ways updates and clarifies the biblical text, but not by direct commentary. Rather, Nephite prophets appropriate,refashion, and recontextualize whole chapters; more commonly, they work familiar biblical phrases into their own preaching to create fresh examples of inspired, sacred writ, frequently blurring distinctions between the Old and New Testaments in the process. Some readers have found this appropriation exhilarating, others blasphemous;such contrasting reactions constitute historical evidence as to how a Bible reading public would respond to an American prophet, in their own day.

You may find additional commentary as you read through the Introduction and/or some of Skousen's other writings.

Also, i don't understand why you bolded some of it, please explain the point you are making?

Skousen:
...very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin.

To emphasize the fact that the Book of Mormon finds itself in a very select group of scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon is no small thing in the world of religious texts/scriptures.

Regards,
MG

[_canpakes]

To emphasize the fact that the Book of Mormon finds itself in a very select group of scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon is no small thing in the world of religious texts/scriptures.

MG -

Serious consideration should be given to the role that geographic isolation and protection played in nurturing the increase in the nascent LDS population.

Also, a relatively rapid rise in the popularity of any one thing does not necessarily transmit or expose any apparent veracity inherent to it, as can be demonstrated by things like pet rocks, Nazism, capri pants or Scientology.

[_I have a question]

Also, i don't understand why you bolded some of it, please explain the point you are making?

Skousen:
...very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin.

To emphasize the fact that the Book of Mormon finds itself in a very select group of scriptural texts. The Book of Mormon is no small thing in the world of religious texts/scriptures.

Regards,
MG

I realise this may be difficult for you to accept but, it's 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.

The Book of Mormon is no small thing... to Mormons. Outside of Mormonism very few scriptural scholars take it seriously (and those that do seem to do so out of politeness to the Mormons that they know personally), the Book of Abraham even less so. Look at it this way, does Tom Cruise stating that the writings of L. Ron Hubbard "is one of very few texts that come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative" make the writings of L. Ron Hubbard sacred and authoritative to you? If not, then why should whatever Skousen opines on the Book of Mormon carry any more or less weight with you unless you are only seeking to look with one-eye in steadying your own personal ark?

[_I have a question]

He does say this:

Of course, the greatest epic of all—in the eyes of Joseph Smith’s fellow Americans—was the Bible, and one of the first things they noticed was that the Book of Mormon sounded like the King James Version of the Bible. It was meant to be accepted as scripture in a culture saturated with biblical discourse. The relationship between the two books has yet to be explored fully. It has always been recognized that some sections The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text of the Book of Mormon feature long passages borrowed from the King James Version of Isaiah and Matthew; what is less obvious is that those quotations have often been subtly modified.

So no, he doesn't explain how exact passages of the King James Bible (including spelling errors and italics) came to be found within a scriptural canon supposedly translated from ancient gold plates dating from a thousand years before the King games Bible, and included in said scriptural canon as if an ancient Prophet had written them.

He's right, it is less obvious how those quotations have been modified and even less obvious how such a thing deflects away from the fact that the Book of Mormon in those copied passages is absolutely not what it is claimed to be, an ancient record that predates the KJV by 1,000 years.

Skousen has recognised that the Book of Mormon contains things it shouldn't were it what it claims to be. He is frantically drawing targets around where arrows have fallen in an attempt to mitigate the evidence. He's the one claiming 16th Century English scholars translated the Book of Mormon and Joseph was simply dictating their translation, right?

[_mentalgymnast]

Serious consideration should be given to the role that geographic isolation and protection played in nurturing the increase in the nascent LDS population.

But the fact is, the Book of Mormon has gone throughout the world after the "nascent" beginnings of the church.

Also, a relatively rapid rise in the popularity of any one thing does not necessarily transmit or expose any apparent veracity inherent to it, as can be demonstrated by things like pet rocks, Nazism, capri pants or Scientology.

If you go back and read Skousen's introduction you will see that he is comparing the Book of Mormon to other world scriptures/holy books.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I realise this may be difficult for you to accept but, it's 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.

The Book of Mormon is no small thing... to Mormons.

If you go back and read Skousen's introduction I think that you will see that the Book of Mormon's publication and the copies of the book that have been distributed throughout the world is no small thing.

Hey, it even warranted its own musical.

by the way, for those that are interested, on the same site I linked to earlier there is a wealth of stuff on the Book of Mormon.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/popular/all

Does the Church of Scientology have a similar library and/or other reputable resources in regards to their 'holy book'? How about "Course in Miracles"? Urantia Book?

Regards,
MG

[_DarkHelmet]

Of course, the greatest epic of all—in the eyes of Joseph Smith’s fellow Americans—was the Bible, and one of the first things they noticed was that the Book of Mormon sounded like the King James Version of the Bible. It was meant to be accepted as scripture in a culture saturated with biblical discourse. The relationship between the two books has yet to be explored fully. It has always been recognized that some sections The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text of the Book of Mormon feature long passages borrowed from the King James Version of Isaiah and Matthew; what is less obvious is that those quotations have often been subtly modified.

So no, he doesn't explain how exact passages of the King James Bible (including spelling errors and italics) came to be found within a scriptural canon supposedly translated from ancient gold plates dating from a thousand years before the King games Bible, and included in said scriptural canon as if an ancient Prophet had written them.

But he does say "The relationship between the two books has yet to be explored fully." The book has been around since 1830. If Mormons haven't bothered to fully explore that relationship yet, they never will. Non-mormons don't need to explore the relationship because it is simply one of many anachronisms that points to the Book of Mormon being a clumsy fraud. They simply toss it in the trash, on top of Dianetics, and move on with life.

[_Maksutov]

The Pilgrim's Progress is a narrative. So is the Divine Comedy. So is Paradise Lost. And so is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Are they scripture? And, if so, what are the implications?