The Book of Mormon Challenge

The Book of Mormon is often dismissed as gibberish by those who have never taken the trouble to read it. In fact, its very existence poses a serious puzzle if it is not what it claims to be - an ancient record. Below is the Book of Mormon Challenge, an assignment that Professor Hugh Nibley at BYU sometimes gave to students in a required class on the Book of Mormon. The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.8, Ch.11, Pg.221 - Pg.222:

Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.

Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done." - Hugh Nibley

Structure and Complexity of the Book of Mormon First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with.... The book of Mosiah describes a coronation rite in all its details and presents extensive religious and political histories mixed in with a complicated background of exploration and colonization. The book of Alma is marked by long eschatological discourses and a remarkably full and circumstantial military history. The main theme of the book of Helaman is the undermining of society by moral decay and criminal conspiracy; the powerful essay on crime is carried into the next book, where the ultimate dissolution of the Nephite government is described.

Then comes the account of the great storm and earthquakes, in which the writer, ignoring a splendid opportunity for exaggeration, has as accurately depicted the typical behavior of the elements on such occasions as if he were copying out of a modern textbook on seismology.... [Soon] after the catastrophe, Jesus Christ appeared to the most pious sectaries who had gathered at the temple.

...Can anyone now imagine the terrifying prospect of confronting the Christian world of 1830 with the very words of Christ? ...

But the boldness of the thing is matched by the directness and nobility with which the preaching of the Savior and the organization of the church are described. After this comes a happy history and then the usual signs of decline and demoralization. The death-struggle of the Nephite civilization is described with due attention to all the complex factors that make up an exceedingly complicated but perfectly consistent picture of decline and fall. Only one who attempts to make a full outline of Book of Mormon history can begin to appreciate its immense complexity; and never once does the author get lost (as the student repeatedly does, picking his way out of one maze after another only with the greatest effort), and never once does he contradict himself. We should be glad to learn of any other like performance in the history of literature. - Hugh Nibley, Collected Works Vol. 8

The four types of biblical experts There are four kinds of biblical experts: At the very top are the professionals who have been doing biblical research all their adult lives. They are usually professors in leading universities in various fields that are related to the Bible such as archaeologists, historians, paleographers, professors of the Bible, and professors of Near Eastern languages and literature.

These people are the most credible of all biblical experts and do not let religious views get in the way of the truth. This is why a lot of them consider themselves to be nonbelievers in the modern Christian and Jewish faiths. Their reputation and standing in the academic community is very important to them. This causes them to be cautious and not rashly declare statements upon any subject without presenting verifiable proof for their claims. It is to them that encyclopedias, journals and universities go to for information. Their community is very small, but extremely influential in the secular world. One distinctive feature of this group is the difficulty outsiders face when reading their writings which causes them to be a fairly closed society.

The second group of biblical experts are those who have legitimate degrees and may have initially been in the first group but were spurned by the first group for being unreliable because they disregard demonstrable proof simply because their religious convictions teach otherwise. For them, their religion's teaching overrides real biblical research. Very few of them can be considered Fundamentalists.

The third group of biblical experts are the "biblical experts." These people disregard the works and conclusions of the first group, and view the second group as their mentors. Nearly all anti-Mormons who produce anti-Mormon paraphernalia fall into this group. Their views are purely theological and display ignorance of legitimate biblical studies. Their arguments are non-rational and are frequently sensational hype and empty rhetoric. These people are very vocal and constantly parade their "expertise" upon the unknowing masses by giving seminars in various churches and religious schools. Nearly all of them are Fundamentalists.

The fourth group of "biblical experts" are those who have never read the Bible completely and do not even know the history and contents of the Bible. They are completely reliant upon materials produced by the third group and may have five verses in the Bible memorized to quote at people they encounter (in nearly every instance John 3:16 and John 14:6 are included in these five verses) to give the impression they are experts in the Bible. They usually need the Table of Contents to find various biblical books and are extremely vocal in their condemnation of Mormonism. They personify the wise adage:

The remainder of Christians are those who believe in the Bible but never read it. The Bible is a very complex book for most Christians and seems to possess a power that intimidates them. This is why a normal Christian is impressed whenever he or she encounters an individual who can quote scripture. It is this ignorance of the Bible that causes some to proclaim themselves "biblical experts."

I am not aware of anyone in the first group of biblical experts who are anti-Mormon. If anything, real biblical scholars who know Mormon theology have a profound sense of admiration for it and are usually astonished that so many facets of Mormonism reflect authentic biblical teachings.

They are frequently puzzled at how Joseph Smith could find out the real biblical teaching since modern Judaism and Christianity abandoned them thousands of years ago. Uniquely Mormon doctrines such as the anthropomorphic nature of God, the divine nature and deification potential of man, the plurality of deities, the divine sanction of polygamy, the fallacy of sola scriptura, the superiority of the charismatic leaders over the ecclesiastical leaders and their importance, the inconsequence of Original Sin because of the Atonement of Christ, the importance of contemporary revelation, and so forth are all original Jewish and Christian thought before they were abandoned mainly due to Greek philosophical influence.

Mormonism to these scholars is the only faith that preserves the characteristics of the early chosen people. This doesn’t mean these scholars believe Mormonism is the true religion, since their studies are on an intellectual level instead of a spiritual one.

On the other hand, the leaders of the anti-Mormon movement are nearly all in the third category with a couple in the second. Real biblical experts (who aren’t Mormon) and are in the first category normally refer to the “biblical experts” in the third group as the “know-nothings” or the “Fundamentalist know-nothings.” These terms aren’t completely derogatory, but are accurate descriptions of the knowledge of the “biblical experts” in the third group. Ed Watson - Mormonism: Faith of the 21st Century

I believe I simply pointed out that the orthodox teaching of the Church is that The Father and the Son are distinct Persons, but are both the One Eternal God, along with the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed disagrees with you.

I don't know why you think the Nicene Creed disagrees with the proposition that the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit) are distinct persons, but what Quester said is perfectly correct. If you're trying to say that the Nicene Creed disagrees with orthodox Trinitarianism, then you aren't understanding the creed the way Trinitarians do; if you're trying to say that orthodox Trinitarianism doesn't teach what Quester said it does, you're simply mistaken.

Another ancient (4th Century) creed, the Athanasian, puts it perhaps more clearly:

And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal ... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords.

>>Delphi, you are funny. You use this verse to say that the only way that someone can
>>say the words, "Jesus is Lord" is through the Holy Ghost. Mormon's believe that the
>>only way to get the gift of the Holy Ghost is through the "laying on of hands by one
>>with proper authority." You use this same logic to say that only members of the
>>Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can have the gift of the Holy Ghost.....
>>All others, Catholic, Protestants, do not have the authority to have this gift. So how
>>do they profess that Christ is Lord?

Easy, They also testify by the power of the Holy Ghost. (I have never denyed that, nor does the Church)

Mormons do not say what you think we say.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

All men can be moved upon by the spirit, that is commonly how they become members (Big Big Grin)

>> I think teaching of another Christ of a different Christ

We teach of Jesus Christ, Born of Mary, the only begotten of the father, you saying we don’t won’t change that. Your argument is tired; you keep repeating the same statements about what we believe without understanding the refutation of your postulates. Do you have anything new?

>>You can recognize false doctrine by knowing the word of GOD.

And it’s a good thing I do.

>>You must validate for yourself every doctrine you hear with the word of GOD (Bible).

Um, Praying about it is not an option then? OK, CC does not believe in prayer as a valid way of knowing anything, explains a lot. (I reserve the right to come back to this later)

>> Otherwise the antichrist will lead you into a false belief.
>>You will think you are following Christ but you will be a follower of the Antichrist.

I see, and there is no possibility that my witnesses of truth are correct because … You say so. So I am to take the word of an Internet poster over a personal witness from God?

BTW the James 2 quote, read the whole thing it is about people being justified by WORKS.

Try this on for size Gospel of John 17: 21 & 22 (the great intercessory prayer) Jesus draws a simile on his and God’s oneness.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“Even as we are one” We know he did not expect the apostles to join into one super apostle but a oneness of spirit, a oneness of purpose, a oneness of heart. This was his meaning, him who has ears to hear, let him hear.

There is support for what we teach in the Bible The very fact that we are having this discussion is proof that the gospel as presented in the Bible is “Debatable” because we are currently debating it. This proves the need for more scripture to add to the testimony so that the Gospel will be preached in its fullness, a fullness that you deny.

As we were told in General Conference in April, there are those who are wise… and those who are other-wise.

>>Fortunately it doesn't refute a thing ... because it was never a part of the scriptures.
>>
>>It was just another writing in the collection of writings which were generated during
>>the days of the early church. Some of these writings were inspired by God ... and some
>>of them weren't.

Why wasn’t it included in the Bible if all the authors of the time agreed as you said? That was my point, you missed it. As you will no doubt, miss this plainly stated refutation of the Compilation of the Bible.

>>God did ... working through the church.

A church that Paul said was already falling away from the teachings…

The Bible was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and writers of the day complained that important books were lost (Esibius sp?). The Great grandson of St John the Apostle (Hippolytus) wrote books refuting some of the heresies he saw entering the church, His works were mostly lost due to the Heresies winning! The Bible as it is assembled, was assembled by men who took the power of the church to add to their power base. Go and read up on Constantine and the Bible at the Caholic encyclopedia site.

You might embarrass yourself by posting about the “Happy homogonous Bible compilation” it was a bloody battle and it was one the truth lost.

The Life of Constantine (http://www.newadvent.org/Fathers/2502.htm ) for starters, and remember it was written by a scribe who could be killed if Constantine didn’t like it

Continue to Search this valuable resource, and you will see competing translations, Greek was used until 250 AD or so, then Latin stated to come into vogue, the first Bible was in Latin, biblia means a collection of books in Latin. It was a long time before it was considered the “Authoritative” source and was called “The Bible”. Your neat and orderly version of the compiling of the bible just never happened.

>> Is it your opinion that all of the writings which appeared during the days of the early
>>church ... should have been declared scripture?

No, but destroying Books is never a good idea.

>>Do you think that all of the Old Testament Jewish writings ...
>>were compiled into the Old Testament canon ?

No, but the Torah which was considered scripture by Christ was.

>> Do you believe that the LDS should give as much credence to the Gospel of Judas ...
>>as you give to your already declared scriptures ?

No, but it sure makes for interesting reading, I’m waiting for the prophet to give us his opinion, until then, it’s just interesting.

>> Why is it that you believe that the Nicean Creed disagrees with me ?

Because what it says and what you say are not the same.

>> I have been going to God in prayer for some 40 years now ...
>>and He has yet to even hint to me ... that Book of Mormon is from Him.

Did you ask? Did you ask in Faith? How long did you do this?

>> not another soul on earth ever read those plates.

Not another soul saw the Burning bush, nobody saw god call Jonah and nobody saw Abraham wrestle with an angel. I’ve got tons more

Most of the prophets in the Bible will not meet the standards you set for Joseph Smith, they must be hucksters too.

>> You all have only Joseph's word as to what they said.

No, I have God’s word, but you won’t accept my testimony that I have received a witness from him. Your refusal to accept testimony does not mean it did not happen nor does it mean I am deceived. Satan does not testify of Christ, nor does he teach men to call on Christ’s name.

>> The Spirit simply hasn't led us to embrace the Book of Mormon.

Well, it led me to. Why not try again? You might learn something, what have you got to lose anyway? No answer, no harm, answer you learned some thing important.

Millions of Mormons can’t be wrong. (Grin)

If I learn any thing when I read good I get a good feelings, when I read things from the devil like trying to shake ones faith, or underminding the Book of Mormon, or writting thing to create doubt...

I get a very strong forbodden feeling, some can confuse and think it is about the Book of Mormon, but it really the person is misunderstanding, for it is the kind of answer one get from the opposition a forbodden scray feeling!

Because when one goes back and read the scripture peace returns to their mind!

I use to get a forbodden feeling when I read the Walter Martin stuff about the Book of Mormon or things like it, but the feeling went away when I read the Book of Mormon!

This is a very clear lesson on discernment this is when I was a member for less than 6 months, it is a lesson I never forgot!

Than another time I read in one of our lesson what the fruits of the spirit of the Holy Ghost is an also what the what the opposition posses and it can not imatate good it can only create fear.

I would love to come across that lesson again I never forgot the jest of it!

Read the Book of Mormon feel peace and Good it is the same feeling I get whenever I read the word of God

Read the anti version I get a forbodden and scray feeling!

Only things of the Lord can give peace!

I thought that Mormons believed that there ARE other gods in other universe's?

Bonfire many times have you read or asked or seen this question repeated in the pass 5 years?

Seems to me there is a pattern to the way the Lord works as witness by the universe

Gen. 1 1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

etc.

If we were to think the digest version of Moses 1st five books had all the knowledge that God spoke it would not be an abridgement of his Word!

We know earth is not the first planet nor the last planet that the Lord had created nor does he say this is the only planet that has people on it!

This is just common since knowledge!

You must validate for yourself every doctrine you hear with the word of GOD (Bible).

Um, Praying about it is not an option then? OK, CC does not believe in prayer as a valid way of knowing anything, explains a lot....

You answered a question you directed to me. Delphi, read the web. There are almost as many "apostate" Mormons as those in good standing. I prayed for 45 years that I would receive the answer to my prayers, that the Church was true. Even after I became inactive, even when I became athiestic, I prayed. I wanted to believe it was true.

What happens to cause good Mormons like me to begin to doubt? One writer called it the "double bind" of Mormonism. The church promises happiness, joy, salvation, blessings, and a good life as a good person. Whether the church actually promises these things, members understand that living the gospel 100% will bring them close. When the Mormon does everything the church asks him to do, work, pray, study, tithe, go to meetings, do genealogy, do temple work, fulfill callings, etc., etc., etc., and somehow he does not feel that it's working the way it should, the response he gets from the church is that he isn't really doing it right, or often enough, or faithfully enough. The solution suggested to him is to study MORE, pray MORE, read MORE scriptures.

The double bind is that the church places the blame for not fulfilling its part of the bargain on the member. It's the member's fault. This can be psychologically devastating, especially to someone who is really devout, who is really trying, and who really does not see what he is doing wrong or how he is not living the gospel as completely as he can. It destroys a person's self-esteem, puts tremendous guilt on him, and he sees no way to solve his problem.

I have found the sweet joy of the Savior, who gave his life precisely because of me (and you), because I cannot live perfectly. I pray to him now,because he died for me. I pray to worship Him, I pray many times a day just to talk to Him, I have a relationship with Him. No longer do I beg and plead for Him to answer my heartfelt prayer that "the Church (LDS) is true." He answered me many years ago, I didn't listen to Him until I accepted his sacrifice on the cross for my sin. His answer was and always had been "NO."

I went to several bisops about my unbelief, the bishops advice was to pray more, or read the scriptures more, or "examine yourself and see if there aren't some areas of the Gospel where you are not keeping the commandments," i.e., "you would not be having this problem if you were living the gospel." I knew however that I had been as faithful as humanly possible. I came to believe God didn't love me, I thought He had turned his back to me, then quite naturally I began to doubt that this advice is from God, that God is inspiring this advice. This is the way God worked to answer my prayers. He showed me that it is Him and Him alone I should follow. Not Joseph Smith, not Harold B. Lee, or Gordon B. Hinckly, not the Stake President, or the Bishop. The answer to my prayers was that I should never defer my relationship to Him to the current "patriarch" of my family. God had always spoken to me, I had refused to listen because all these supposed "men of God" stood between me and my Father God.

Thomas Ferguson said (the Mormon authority on Book of Mormon archaeology, who was a secret apostate), "The LDS church is the greatest social club in the world!" But Mormonism, took away my individuality. I became part of the mass known as the Latter-day Saints. I was instructed several times a week about what to think, what to believe, how to behave, what to read, how to dress and how to spend my money. And after doing all that I had been told (as well as any human possible could,) I was told I failed because of me, because I needed a "test."

Your Church fails the test, it fails the Word of God, it fails as a "social experiment in mind control." Millions of ex-mormons, inactive-mormons, born-again Christians like me can't be wrong!

I really find what you say CC is foreign to me

The Church is a vehicle of the Lord it is NOT the Lord!

When I joined the Church in 1982 it was still in those days where little was said how to handle certain kinds of questions.

Each being had to learn to fly on their own!

I knew the Church was true but I was not getting answers to some hard questions I wanted to know I had to exercise my faith and learn how to fly when it came to testimonial things!

I was at the stage of an embryo in the Chruch at the time, but I did do all of my soul seaching with the Heavenly Father and asking the Holy Spirit edify me in the name of Jesus Christ!

I had already been witness to by the Holy Spirit about the Book of Mormon before I knew any thing else. I knew the taste of the Spriit of the Lord from my childhood when I sang the hymns in mainline churches!

I was knew what it felt to be baptized in the mainstream and also in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
it was the differents between night and day!

I know the feeling I had for serveral weeks afterwards and later on when I read the Kritland Temple and what many witness I too could associate for I had some of those experiences.

I also had the opposition try to shake me when certain literature came my way, but it was a one on one all by self to know if what it said was real or not.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=607#607

Again I was tested so with the help the help from the Godhead was able to know the truth for my self!

I gained my own personal testamony by depending on the Lord (GodHead)!

I have a firm foundation

...and I am a work in progress there was, and still is a lot of overhauling going on and the work does get done when I sit still long enough for it.

You seem to think it comes from the Chruch when it really come from you to know the Lord expects you to know him!

You talk about perfect as those it is NOT scripture yet it is mention 56 times in the Bible!

The Lord knows in this kingdom man could never be 100% perfect that is why the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ to redeem us!

You end of the contract was you were to

A of F
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;
second, Repentance; third,
Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

and to Keep the Lord Commandments

These things are still in the bible maybe not as clarified as in the Restoration scriptures, but they are there!

If there is NO Meeting of the Minds you have NO Contract, NO Promise!

>>I thought that Mormons believed that there ARE other gods in other universe's?

There are also other Fathers in the World, but you don’t call them Dad. We only have one God. And God is Three personages, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

(http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1 )

>>So there ARE god's that RULE over other universe's? God's that are equal to or more powerful?

No, we belong to God he is the ultimate authority over us.

>>According to your post, and others here, Mormon's spend alot of time praying
>>that their church is "true".

Yes, then we receive a witness and we stop praying, and start acting (it’s that "Works" thig that has been brought up here)

>>Is it not true many of your questions as well as others are not couched in double entendre?

I have never intentionally made a sexually charged comment on a religious thread.

I do joke around though.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.