The Book of Mormon

[Hermes]

alright, you two, kiss and make up before i have to close this important thread! Dan and apologize, please! i love you ~hermes

[Nevo]

alright, you two, kiss and make up before i have to close this important thread! Dan and apologize, please! i love you ~hermes

Professor Peterson has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Frankly I'm surprised that "apologize" is still allowed to post here.

[Rincewind]

Professor Peterson has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Frankly I'm surprised that "apologize" is still allowed to post here.

I for one am in total agreement.

If "apologize" wants to know what's in the book, he/she/it should go buy it him/her/itself.

[Hermes]

Professor Peterson has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Frankly I'm surprised that "apologize" is still allowed to post here.

ok i admit i am still a little mad at daniel petersen because he still hasnt provided 7 full chapters of his Mohammad biography by typing them up and emailing to me ~hermes

[Daniel Peterson]

ok i admit i am still a little mad at daniel petersen because he still hasnt provided 7 full chapters of his Mohammad biography by typing them up and emailing to me ~hermes

Sheesh.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. I cannot serve Apologize and Hermes. Not full time, anyway.

And if it seem evil unto me to serve Hermes, I must choose this day whom I will serve. So, as for me and my house, we will serve . . . Well, I'm still thinking about it.

[David T]

My copy just arrived.

[Scott Lloyd]

Having glanced through some of Apologize's posts on this thread, I can say that I haven't seen such a palpable sense of entitlement since, well, since the anti-Mormon protesters complained last year about not being allowed Port-a-Potty privileges on the grounds of the Manti Temple at the Mormon Miracle Pageant.

[Calm]

Having glanced through some of Apologize's posts on this thread, I can say that I haven't seen such a palpable sense of entitlement since, well, since the anti-Mormon protesters complained last year about not being allowed Port-a-Potty privileges on the grounds of the Manti Temple at the Mormon Miracle Pageant.

Scott, you evil man. You do realize there are so many ways one could run with this comparison, almost all of which might get one suspended.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

My copy of Royal's The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text arrived today. Put simply, it is a must-read for any serious student of the BoMor.

Grant Hardy's "Introduction" is well informed and well written, as are Royal's "Editor's Preface" and "Appendix: Significant Textual Changes."

I've had the good fortune of reading from full-color scans of the BoMor mss. for several years. But for general readers, Skousen's tome is an unprecedented opportunity to listen for echoes of an authorial voice...

[Mosiah 16:12a]

having gone according to their own carnal wills and desires,

having never called upon the Lord

while the arms of mercy was extended towards them

â??for the arms of mercy was extended towards them and they would notâ??

they being warned of their iniquities,

and yet they would not depart from them.

In such jeremiads some may discern poetic reverberations of ancient prophets, others elegant homilies of a Campbellite preacher; or perhaps for those who lack ears to hear, word salad.

For me, I empathically sense the whisperings of a village scryer who tenderly sought to heal and redeem himself and his family.

Kind regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[LifeOnaPlate]

How about poetic reverbiations of ancient prophets as translated by a village seer-turned prophet who tenderly sought to do the will of God? Emphatically, I do believe.

[Ray Agostini]

How about poetic reverbiations of ancient prophets as translated by a village seer-turned prophet who tenderly sought to do the will of God?

Pious fraud comes to mind. Pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, and all that.

Emphatically, I do believe.

I do emphatically disbelieve (in historicity), but I think the BoM still has a place in modern society (not the one Mormons envision). I think it can be useful as a kind of "jumper lead" to starting the engine of further ("spiritual") inquiry. Remember, in the BoM you go straight to hell and it's all black and white.

Then Joseph really starts thinking, thinking, thinking........."I need to dig up new things for my hearers".

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ray's thoughts remind me of something I just read the other day:

Inside the Church, too many members treat the book as something of a theological version of Bartlett's Favorite Quotationsâ??a source for inspirational snippets that can be used to make various points in speeches and sermons but not a book to be read and pondered at length. Those Latter-day Saints who go no farther than that in their study of the book do not really understand it, and some make claims for it that go well beyond what the book itself maintains (Bob Bennett, Leap of Faith: Confronting the Origins of the Book of Mormon p. .

I guess in some cases such a shallow reading need not cause someone to make claims that go well beyond, but rather don't even reach the depths available in the book.

[Ray Agostini]

I guess in some cases such a shallow reading need not cause someone to make claims that go well beyond, but rather don't even reach the depths available in the book.

A "shallow" reading? I've read the BoM more than 20 times (I stopped counting after that). Admittedly my last full reading was somewhere in the roaring '90s.

Which part of the BoM would you like to debate me on, Blair? One day, when you finally work out that the BoM is a modernised Christian text filled with anachronisms, then we might agree on what's necessary to be added from it to "Bartlett's Quotations".

[apologize]

A "shallow" reading? I've read the BoM more than 20 times (I stopped counting after that). Admittedly my last full reading was somewhere in the roaring '90s...One day, when you finally work out that the BoM is a modernised Christian text filled with anachronisms..."

If you had some dignity you would admit you're caught in the BoM trap, your mind unable to let go what your heart knows. You're logic has betrayed your assumed confidence. Apologize!

[why me]

Professor Peterson has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Frankly I'm surprised that "apologize" is still allowed to post here.

I had the same thought. The thread could have been very interesting if it weren't for someone derailing it. But then again, Dan should know better than to give time to that kind of post(s). Hopefully the thread will get back on track.

[why me]

A "shallow" reading? I've read the BoM more than 20 times (I stopped counting after that). Admittedly my last full reading was somewhere in the roaring '90s.

Which part of the BoM would you like to debate me on, Blair? One day, when you finally work out that the BoM is a modernised Christian text filled with anachronisms, then we might agree on what's necessary to be added from it to "Bartlett's Quotations".

But what is unfortunate for you Ray, is that your opinion is just conjecture unless tangible proof is provided or a manucript is found that supports a JS or a Sidney Rigdon authorhip. I still have no idea how JS could have wrote a book on manucript and put his head in his hat to recite it to someone who recorded what he said.

And if Sidney wrote the book, how could JS memorize the book and stick his head in a hat to recite it?

Both instances would show quite a gift to be sure.

[why me]

Hi folks,

For me, I empathically sense the whisperings of a village scryer who tenderly sought to heal and redeem himself and his family.

Kind regards,

</brent>

From what exactly? What would he be redeeming his family from? I take it to imply that you meant Joseph Smith in your post. And if so, why would his father and brothers go along with family redemption to the point of absurdity when one considers the persecution that Joseph experienced, not to mention the death of Hyrum and Joseph. That is a lot of redemption.

And we need to remember that Joseph Sr. claimed to have seen the plates along with the other 7 witnesses that attached their names. Would Joseph Sr. go along with his son's redemption theory. I doubt it .

[Wants2know]

Immediately after having dinner this evening with Royal Skousen and his wife (and my wife), Royal and I headed over to one of my offices, where, I had been told, a package was waiting for me. We were both pleased to find, in it, a copy of Professor Skousen's edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009):

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Earliest-Text/dp/0300142188

This new volume represents some of the results of his two decades of work on the textual history of the Book of Mormon, as these have been published (so far) by FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute). He will continue to publish commentary on that textual history with us, as well as really interesting reflections on the discipline of text criticism, but, in this book, readers will have his "bottom line" conclusions as to how the text should read.

One of the nice features of this edition, too, is that the entire text of the Book of Mormon is written out in what Professor Skousen calls "sense lines," which, in my opinion, help considerably with readability. The text is not divided into columns, and verses are marked off only by numbers in the margin. The volume is very elegantly produced, and, by conscious design, lies effortlessly open on a table. A must-buy, in my opinion, for serious students and readers of the Book of Mormon.

I'm confused, is this a new edition that is approved by the church? I ask, because I'd like to read the BOM, but every time I start it just feels to cumbersome to read and I give up. I'd love a text that explains what I'm reading and gives it's meaning in terms and contexts I can more easily understand. I'm not stupid... I just find it a difficult read.

[David T]

I'm confused, is this a new edition that is approved by the church? I ask, because I'd like to read the BOM, but every time I start it just feels to cumbersome to read and I give up. I'd love a text that explains what I'm reading and gives it's meaning in terms and contexts I can more easily understand. I'm not stupid... I just find it a difficult read.

This is not a new 'official' or 'devotional' edition, it is a new 'Scholarly' edition. There are no explanatory notes or summaries.

For you, I'd suggest Grant Hardy'sThe Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition. While he doesn't alter the text, he formats it in a way that makes the narrative multitudes easier to follow and navigate, sets it into narrative paragraphs, includes quotation marks, has content-headers instead of 'chapter' headers, typographically sets apart scripture quotations, and also has very useful footnotes.

If you follow the link, you can do a 'look inside', and see a sample of how it's laid out.

[Wants2know]

This is not a new 'official' or 'devotional' edition, it is a new 'Scholarly' edition. There are no explanatory notes or summaries.

For you, I'd suggest Grant Hardy'sThe Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition. While he doesn't alter the text, he formats it in a way that makes the narrative multitudes easier to follow and navigate, sets it into narrative paragraphs, includes quotation marks, has content-headers instead of 'chapter' headers, typographically sets apart scripture quotations, and also has very useful footnotes.

If you follow the link, you can do a 'look inside', and see a sample of how it's laid out.

Thank you so much. That was very helpful. Maybe I'll get through the BOM after all!

[krose]

Those Latter-day Saints who go no farther than that in their study of the book...

Did Bennett really write "farther" in the book or was that just a typo in your post? I hope an editor would catch that for him.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A "shallow" reading? I've read the BoM more than 20 times (I stopped counting after that). Admittedly my last full reading was somewhere in the roaring '90s.

Which part of the BoM would you like to debate me on, Blair? One day, when you finally work out that the BoM is a modernised Christian text filled with anachronisms, then we might agree on what's necessary to be added from it to "Bartlett's Quotations".

Not interested in debate, Ray. No time, and the energy is better spent elsewhere. I was just struck by our respective different experiences with the BoM text (as well as our evident differing expectations for it.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did Bennett really write "farther" in the book or was that just a typo in your post? I hope an editor would catch that for him.

Yeah, it is in the text that way. Farther usually refers to length in distance, and the sentence is evidently referring to further.

[Ray Agostini]

If you had some dignity you would admit you're caught in the BoM trap.....

Okay, I'm caught in the BoM trap. Do I have dignity now?

[Ray Agostini]

I still have no idea how JS could have wrote a book on manucript and put his head in his hat to recite it to someone who recorded what he said.

And if Sidney wrote the book, how could JS memorize the book and stick his head in a hat to recite it?

I have no idea how, either, but I don't hold to the Spalding Theory anyway. Nor the idea that he "wrote it" from memory.