Posted on 04/27/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by restornu
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 less knowledge a man has, the more vocal he is about his expertise.
They read an anti-Mormon book and suddenly they're experts on Mormonism:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
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
>>This kind of "trap them before they know any better," tactic is abusive in my opinion.
Funny, what you call a trap, I call good teaching technique. I guess when I started with Algebra and they didn’t just dump me into Trig. That was a trap, man I really despise my teachers for trapping me into knowledge as I could understand it! (Get a Grip, you usually sound reasonable, you need to work on this area of your argument).
>>Have you read the statistics about how many converts actually stay active in the
>>Church after this "meat doctrine" is introduced.
Sadly, you are right, we lose too many by feeding them too fast, we should slow down.
My first reaction to your Trap statement was to laugh; you know how easy it is to get out of the LDS church, or just to go inactive (look how many figured it out in the second part of your post).
Be honest, how long would it take you to get your name removed? Could you do it by Mail? Is the cost of postage too much? Then go in person too your bishop, he’s got a form letter I’ll wager.
I mean come on! A trap is typically “Hard to get out of”.
The church is nothing but easy to get out of. Go back to your sins tell the Bishop to go to the warmest place you can think of and that you want out, he’ll set you up REAL fast, because he does not want to “add condemnation to your soul”. I’ve read the General Handbook of Instructions, I know.
So, can we dispense with this whole “Trap” claptrap, or can you substantiate your claims that it is a trap? (This is liable to be real fun :-)
I'm still a member of record because my mother has asked me not to remove my name from the records.
God has commanded that I honor my mother, and because I love both of them, I will obey them. : )
I don't love you or the LDS Church in that same way...so I don't care what you think about me...sorry. ; )
I was not trapped in the traditional way. I was born into it which is a different kind of "trap."
I googled "Mormon" and "Trap" and came up with this anti-mormon (as you call it) site.http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon376.htm. I'll let you and others make their own decision. As for me an my house we will avoid the trap and serve the Lord.
The link doesn't work. You can cut and paste it.
Of what men do you speak ?
The writings of the New Testament were all written by the first Apostles of Jesus Christ ... and their disciples.
If you can't trust them to accurately deliver the gospel of Jesus Christ ... who can you trust ? ~ Quester
***
Amazing one would with all seriousness ask that question in that matter!
Just amazing to protray me as stupid!
Answer
Those political clergy of Constantine debated and decided the nature of the Godhead Nicene Creed, which scripture were less offensive to the function world government were NOT part of Lord annoited Priesthood!
someone thinks you need to be recovered?
It is a interesting of the seperating wheat from the shaft!
Not to be confused with tares.
>>Can you state with certainty that the LDS Church teaches that God was once a man
>>and that you may someday become equal to Him?
I can categorically say that we do not teach this! We can be come gods, and goddesses, but we will never be equal to God. He will always be our God. We will always owe him more than we can imagine for creating us and treating us so fairly and well.
Have you ever been in an interview with a reporter? I have, they take classes on how to ask “When did you stop beating your wife” questions, if you ever have the opportunity to represent any kind of a National group and are being interviewed, I have one piece of advice, “stay away from the ropes”.
Besides President Hinckley is a little older than you (I think, 92?), keeping up with the barrage of questions, his best answer many be “I Don’t know”.
>>Can you state with certainty …
Yes, I can. (That was fun *Grin*).
Now I suppose you want to know where and why the prophet would dodge at all on this. It’s really very simple. It is talked about in the Temple ceremonies, which are sacred, and which we covenant with God not to reveal outside of the Temple. Do you think the Reporter would have continued asking questions about the temple if president Hinckley had brought the temple and sacredness of it in to the discussion?
>>and that you may someday become equal to Him?
Our scriptures testify that thoes try to say we believe we will be equal to God is erroneous gossip!
Abraham 3
15 And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.
16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
"Kokaubeam"
What is a kokaubeam?
"Kokaubeam"
What is a kokaubeam?
>>This 'official history' of the early LDS Church is edited from the Utah church's
>>viewpoint. Although the church hasn’t officially denounced this history as being
>>written by someone other than Joseph Smith, the fact is that much of it was not written
>>by him and most of it was put together after he was dead.
Is there a source for this, or do you have personal knowledge (NY Times journalism standards?)
>>The early church historians did many creative things with this history including adding
>>prophecies attributable to Joseph Smith that had been “fulfilled” after his death.
>>(Hmmmm... seems like the early Christians did the same thing). The early historians
>>also censored much of the material to make it more “faith promoting”.
There are two kinds of lies, lies and damnable lies, this falls into the second category. To state propaganda from an obvious anti site well, I had thought better of you CC.
>>I'm still searching for an "official" Church issued statement that this book is accurate.
>>Logophile Do you know?
You will search in vain.
Give ma a minute, I am writing your ‘Official History’, and will have it posted shortly. /Sarc
A smaller planet around about the the realm of Celestial Kingdom of the Lord!
See what I mean? Somebody can go on eternally citing the Bible, and what does our friendly LDS self-appointed apologist do? He pulls out his "trump card," in which the training is ingrained, "when backed into a corner, always say, 'Insofar as correctly translated. That'll throw enough suspicion onto to the text so that we won't have to deal with it.'"
If you've got problems with the "translation," what's wrong with Joseph Smith's so-called "translation" of John 14:9 (even though he didn't know much Greek) in the Inspired Version? Or don't you trust Smith, either?
You can't win for losing w/a good number of LDS folks. Some will use John 14:9 as some sort of proof text that since you can see Jesus--and He has a body of flesh & bones--then likewise you can see the Father, who must have the same.
So for those LDS, John 14:9 is a fave proof-text. But for our friend, here, nope. We'll just throw down the veto card.
"Give ma a minute, I am writing your ‘Official History’, and will have it posted shortly. /Sarc"
Ok.....you made me snort coffee!! :)
Thanks.
>>this very same Paul warns the NT Christians
Link? Refrence?
Gal 1:9
>>The link doesn't work. You can cut and paste it.
you left a period in at the end :-) (Been there, got the T-shirt)
Try this: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon376.htm
Do I detect a scent of smugness in this post [#99]?
If names are so important to prophetic status, then pray tell, who is the first prophet after Joshua as mentioned in Judges 6:7-10? Who was the "man of God" in 1 Kings 13:1? Who was the "old prophet" in 1 Kings 13:25?
You can't tell me 'cause it's not there. Prophets were to exalt God's Word & not seek their own glory. The first of these unnamed prophets appeared in the time of Gideon when Israel was falling back into idolatry. Rather than speak of the future, he called Israel to remember the Lord who delivered them from Egypt.
Again, you seem all caught up with status. While some OT prophets were called for a lifetime, others spoke only briefly (Numbers 11:25-26).
The importance is some "office" to be attached to each prophet, rather it's the Word of the Lord Himself. It was to be a faithful proclamation of God's Word--not their own (Jer 23:16; Eze 13:2).
And it's in this vein that the Lord can temporarily use whoever He wants. For example, Balaam is a clear Biblical enemy of the Lord and His people. Yet who was it that prophesied the Lord's message in Numbers 22:6-24:24? Balaam!
You err on several points in your philosophy/theology of prophets:
(1) LDS believe prophets are called by fellow men--general authorities...that God speaks through general authorities or a previous prophet to establish the next prophet or through chronological years to determine who the next prophet will be. No. Prophets in the Bible received their call directly from God. Some, like Jeremiah or John the Baptist, were called before birth (Jer 1:5; Luke 1:13-126). Their authority came from God whose message they bore (Exodus 7:1-2).
(2) Why only one "living" prophet at a time? Four prophets appeared in the time of David (Gad, Nathan, Zadok, Heman). Four prophets appeared during the time of Jeroboam I (Ahijah, Iddo the Seer, "a Man of God" of 1 Kings 13:1, and "an old prophet" in 1 Kings 13:25. Many of the major prophets were contemporaries of each other. The Lord's true prophets know no competition; yet you would have all with a prophetic gift be a rival to the throne of Salt Lake City [note your wording "calling a prophet"].
As for the Scripture that shows Jesus Christ is our Prophet, and is therefore not trumped by any Utah-based mortal: Hebrews 1:1-2.
Don't force me to publish the rest. We'll be here all night.
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.