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
Now as I convert I never felt that way...
I always think of the mainstream outside of FR as old friends!
When I reading things that done to other church such as the Catholic Church I feel a sinking feeling as though I was a member because to it like an old friend and I wish them well!
Well, the first requirement of us is really to be crucified, so that it's not simply "us" who are living: "I have been crucified with Christ, and it's no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live..." (Gal. 2:20).
God doesn't want the filthy spiritual corpse (a body minus Jesus) trying to "do all we can do." He wants us to come to the end of ourselves, so that the faith life we live is "Christ who lives in me." He is the one who energizes & empowers us. He gets the credit. He gets the glory. And it's the only kind of person God intended. Adam was a God-empowered creation who knew & walked w/God.
Now, it's true...once we're reborn spiritually, then whole-hearted commitment is requisite. No argument there. We're to love God w/whole heart, mind, soul, strength!!! Also, Christ said, "be holy" 'cause God is holy (Matt 5:48).
So, we're not arguing about what the standard is. We're in disagreement as to how we meet that standard.
His way is that His people are collectively a temple of His Holy Spirit who operates through them. My primary temple is the flesh & blood body of Christ which is to be a 24/7 worship & service center. Your primary temple is brick & stone in which religious works are occasionally done.
God already knows us perfectly. We can't change His mind about who we are no matter how many religious works we perform. It's not external works that does it. It's Him working in us, inside-out. We both emphasize works. So who does Paul say is doing this work? You or me? Nope:
"...partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he [not you or me] who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1:5-6).
He began the work. He finishes it. No author writes only the first chapter and then tells the characters of His book to finish the work. He Himself is the Word. Us? We're merely the book to be read by all ["You show that you are a letter from Christ...written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 2 Cor. 3:3]
Very nice answer, thank you.
The oaths were changed in 1990 so chances are, you never experienced the oaths I'm talking about.
>> "How can you say what you said when your very founder would never even have
>>gotten off the ground had he not tried to shake up the faiths of others and denigrate
>>them?"
I never said that, you are confused.
>>(a) shake up your faith, which you say is despicable; and
No, I said Shake, Shake up is diffrent.
>>(b) no one should denigrate another's faith.
No one should.
>> All I was calling for was consistency.
Fine lets both be consistent I’ll ask my question to you and let’s see if you can answer it (we’ve been doing I the other way for some time now.) I believe I have answered your questions in a consistent answer if you read them literally ands don’t try to interpret my words.
Why is it that those who leave the church can’t leave it alone?
Why is it that those who leave the church can’t leave it alone?
________________________________________________________
You sound like you are on a quest of sorts...good luck.
That's at least the third time you've asked the question. And I believed I answered it in post #496.
Review that, and tell me if it answers it or not, and if not, why not?
>>God the Father is no witness to Joseph Smith's testimony.
I will state here and now I have received such a witness. Complain not the ye have not received such a witness, but go and seek one for your self (Just a philosophical note: Its really dang hard to prove a negative here, “No one will ever receive a witness of X”)
>>There have been no mighty works like those following the ministries of Jesus,
>>Moses, Noah, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John, Peter, Paul, etc.
Please define “Mighty Work”
>>Moses didn't write about Joseph Smith
Moses was writing about Christ, why would he write about a prophet to come almost 2,000 years later? Moses did not write about you either.
>>And my point is that Joseph Smith needs to held to the same standard as any Biblical prophet.
He wrote Scriptures that have led many to believe in Christ, he prophesied of the future many prophecies have been fulfilled others are still waiting (revelations is still waiting too.)
The definitve test given in the scriptures is that the prophecies of any so-called prophet must come to pass.
So, Revelations is a lie because it has not happened yet? God Forbid.
>>God, Himself, said that if anyone claims to be a prophet, ... and those things
>>that he says don't come to pass, ... do not listen to him ... for he is a false prophet.
By that standard, Joseph Smith is a good prophet to follow.
From the Writings of Confucius “In questioning Diety, any answer is significant” I have born my testimony on this forum before, suffice it to say Joseph Smith is a prophet of God because I have received a witness that I have no doubt came directly from God as to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I would invite all to read, Study, Ponder and Pray. Hoping to receive a testimony from God. I believe this to be good advice when you want to know if anything is “True” and “From God” those who state they “Know my religion is not true” have yet to prove anything except that they did not receive a witness as I have.
God Bless you all
To restate it then: You can't let J.Smith off the hook for
(a) denigrating the creeds and professors of all historic Christian sects [see post #472];
and (b) attempting to shake the faiths of many by setting loose at large a missionary enterprise meant to loose folks from their faith-based moorings as members of Christian churches
While (c) accusing others of denigrating your faith and attempting to shake it simply by using the same witnessing opportunities & liberties every LDS missionary enjoys & employs.
You can't have it both ways. Consistency states that either you accuse J.Smith of doing same, or that you avoid tagging Christians w/such labels.
>>I took a blood oath in the Temple.
>>I'm just daring you all to come and slash my throat.
>>I told all your dirty little secrets and I'm still alive.
I’m a fairly stable person, but daring people to come and kill you on an open internet forum, it’s just not smart. (Please be safe)
So you are an oath breaker, OK.
So you are daring me to do something you know I will not do, Dare declined.
So you think the temple ceremonies are dirty?
What do you think of the Mason’s ceremonies? Are they dirty? (There are similarities, or so I hear)
And if you remember, the words were about what you would rather have done, not what we will do to you if…
I would not be advertising that I will break a covenant if I were you, I am a man of my word even if I give it to the Devil himself, I will keep it. You seem to find this as a badge of honor, I am embarrassed for you.
When I first kneeled down and asked in a contrit spirit I never really expected an over whelming joy that would surge through my whole being!
As I was going through the lessons I would have loved to have the missionaries come every day I just could not wait to hear more!
If it was not for the prophet Joseph Smith and the restoration I would never have know there was such love and peace!
That was 24 years ago and I still feel the same way today!
By that standard, Joseph Smith is a good prophet to follow.
You can't on the one hand say that Smith is a "good prophet to follow" after he failed the Deuteronomy 18 test above. You can't on the one hand claim that "living prophet" is vital and that D&C reflects some of those prophecies, when D&C 114:1 unveils a false prophecy.
"Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world." (D&C 114:1)
Date of "prophecy": 4/17/1838.
Date of mission mentioned in prophecy: "that he may perform a mission unto me next spring [1839]."
Date of Patten's death: 10/1838.
Bottom line: God knew who would die and who wouldn't. He was not surprised by Patten's death. God doesn't waste his breath by uttering specific names who will not be performing any mission to him...
Thanks for posting, I'll see you around on the board I'm sure.
It does, I'mm chugging through these in order of pingage Ugh!
Unfortunately, I believe you. AND I really don't care what you think or believe about me.
How do you know the mission was to this world? Telling him to settle his business and dispose of his responsibilities in advance was not all that common, it was a kindness from the Lord to warn him to put his affairs in order.
The difference between the interpretations is simple, I know Joseph smith to be a prophet by personal revelation. You believe he was not a prophet. I look at the prophecy and say how was this fulfilled? You look at it and say “how can this be used to prove Josph Smith was not a prophet?
We both will see what we expect to see.
>>God the Father is no witness to Joseph Smith's testimony.
I will state here and now I have received such a witness. Complain not the ye have not received such a witness, but go and seek one for your self (Just a philosophical note: Its really dang hard to prove a negative here, “No one will ever receive a witness of X”)
And so ... your witness (from the Father) was experiential ?
And you could not have been fooled ?
Even as Joseph Smith could not have been fooled ?
The witnesses Jesus called for His ministry were objective. Noone (not even His enemies) could deny that He worked miraculous works of God, ... and that He taught as none had taught before.
>>There have been no mighty works like those following the ministries of Jesus,
>>Moses, Noah, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John, Peter, Paul, etc.
Please define “Mighty Work”
Healing the sick, raising the dead, stilling the storm, walking on water, calling the fire of God down to consume sacrifice, parting the sea, providing waterfrom a rock, building the ark, etc.
>>Moses didn't write about Joseph Smith
Moses was writing about Christ, why would he write about a prophet to come almost 2,000 years later? Moses did not write about you either.
And I have not proclaimed myself the self-annointed bearer of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith did this. Biblically, he should have had a more witness ... to substantiate his claim.
>>And my point is that Joseph Smith needs to held to the same standard as any Biblical prophet.
He wrote Scriptures that have led many to believe in Christ, he prophesied of the future many prophecies have been fulfilled others are still waiting (revelations is still waiting too.)
I've seen his (Joseph Smith's) misses.
So what is your regular Freeper name?
Mormon threads always draw "new" Freepers. And they are always, hold your breath, Mormon! Well golly!
I don't for a minute believe you have never posted on FR before.
I was on a thead once where 9 "new" Freepers signed up. All Mormons!
Hey I was on that thread too. I remember it well ; )
Now that you mention it there is a brand new member on this thread too. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1628161/posts?page=113#113
Maybe they're all mormon apologists from FAIR or FARMS coming over to FR to hone their debate skills.
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.