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
Who is the God of your god? Does your god worship a being higher than himself? Does your father in heaven have a Father in Heaven?
Just how far down the line will you be when you become a god?
Besides President Hinckley is a little older than you (I think, 92?)
Are you saying that Hinkley was mistaken in his response about LDS Doctrine? If we can't count on the sole Living Prophet of God and President of the LDS Church to give us the answer in regard to what is or is not official church doctrine, then who can we look to?
Does your god worship a being higher than himself?
Does your father in heaven have a Father in Heaven?
Are you saying that Hinkley was mistaken in his response about LDS Doctrine?
If we can't count on the sole Living Prophet of God and President of the LDS Church to give us the answer in regard to what is or is not official church doctrine, then who can we look to?
**8There were two houses after the split, the house of Judah, composed of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, and the house of Israel, composed of the rest. The house of Israel is pretty clearly specified.***
The term "house of Israel" is often used interchangably for both groups. Also, many from the Northern kingdom moved south into Judah when the northern kingdom turned to idolatry.
Be careful, that's the Word of God you're talking about. I thought Mormons believed in the Bible. They even profess it on their official website. Now you're calling it heresy! (Oh I just read your post again, I guess you are calling it hearsay.) sorry!
Ezek 37
15 ¶ The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 ¶ And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
Well if you don't know, that's fine. Even an "I don't know" to those questions makes it clear to everyone that LDS theology and Christian theology are mutually incompatible.
Because I have already answered those questions today on one of these thread if you really want to know!
Being, at best, agnostic and more likely atheistic, I find it amazing the lengths that some of you here on FreeRepublic will go to discredit a group that is as self-sufficient, conservative, and reliably Republican as the Mormons.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was born in Utah, and attended a Mormon church until I was 12 years old. I don't currently ascribe to any religion, Christian or otherwise.
And what were your answers?
Yes, they did, that would be why there are references to other tribes in the predominately Judah remnant during the New Testament. But the Northern house was still population heavy compared the Judah.
I suppose the "house of Israel" could be used collectively, after all, they all were Israel, and Matthew 15:24 would tend to support that.
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But by the same token He would have included the greatest mass of Israel, for they were indeed lost, and there are indications that one or more of the disciples in addition to Paul were up in Europe. Jesus was sent, as He said, not to just to Judah and Benjamin, but all of Israel. I'd doubt that the location of the rest was hidden from Jesus.
There is also evidence of remnants of the remaining house of Israel in Europe and Assyrian records that indicate that direction for the remnant after Assyria was defeated. They would have had three/five hundred years to get there.
I don't think the chapters of any of the four Gospels are in chronological order, so it's probable that when Jesus instructed the apostles and charged them to go teach, it was referring to their life mission, not just a trip out to the towns in the region.
Hosea 1:11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
The prophecies haven't come to pass, yet.
***I suppose the "house of Israel" could be used collectively, after all, they all were Israel, and Matthew 15:24 would tend to support that.***
Here are some better references.
2Ch 20:35 And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly:
2Ch 21:2 And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.
Was Jehoshaphat BOTH king of Judah and Israel? These say he was.
2Ch 28:1 Ahaz [was] twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:
Ahaz, in Jerusalem was king of Judah.
But he was ALSO King of Israel.
2Ch 28:19 For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD.
Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Or was he!
Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
And Paul..Israelite or Jew?
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man [which am] a Jew of Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Act 22:3 I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Upon return from captivity Ezra 6:17 says they offered dedication sacrifices for ALL ISRAEL and according to the number of the tribes of Israel.
I think that is plenty to show that enough returned of the whole house of Israel returned to Judah to be considered Israel.
***In the interest of full disclosure, I was born in Utah, and attended a Mormon church until I was 12 years old. I don't currently ascribe to any religion, Christian or otherwise.***
As Madaline Murray O'Hair said years ago on the Larry King Live Show, "The best atheists are former Mormons and Catholics."
(I watched that show.)
I think she did more to damage the moral fabric of this country than any other single influence in history.
Religion is important. I realize that, despite my personal dis-belief.
I figured that my "full disclosure" would be pounced upon as a means to further damage the reputations of Mormons, though I had hoped it would have been a reason to see the similarities eclipsing the differences between religious conservatives.
Guess not.
Washi, if you are referencing my post about the similarities between Muhammand and Joseph Smith, I pointed out a comparison that Joseph Smith hmself did. And nothing I said in any way detracted from Mormons or their religion.
Those similarities are a reality. There are also dissimilarities. There is nothing inherently wrong in pointing out (on a thread that challenges someone to produce something like the Book of Mormon) to mention the Koran. It is a valid point.
If you continue reading the thread you will notice that I am an unbelieving Mormon or as some would call me, apostate.
***I figured that my "full disclosure" would be pounced upon as a means to further damage the reputations of Mormons, though I had hoped it would have been a reason to see the similarities eclipsing the differences between religious conservatives.
Guess not.****
Set back, give yourself some time. You are not the only one who has left a church, went through an atheist phase, then found better church!
If the inter-faith sniping is any indication, I'll consider my atheism that "better church." Thanks.
FWIW-
As I understand it, Judah always has the crown, that is, the tribe retained the royal rulership of Israel with their line (which is why the Messiah would come form that line). So, it's not improbable that a ruler of Judah would likewise claim to rule Israel.
The other tribes, sunk in sin, would of course, differ. Israel was given over to the Assyrians for their sin. Judah was given over to the Babylonians for theirs.
Sorry that LDS deserve a VOICE too inspite of what think!
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.