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
Satan is a angel of light. Did he show up when the tablets were provided?
Satan-angel of light
all I need is the witness of the Holy Spirit and the servants that the Holy Spirit witness too!
All the rest from a non servant of God remains heresay!
>>This backs up Quester's supposition that there is NO evidence.
There is evidence, you just don’t accept it as genuine to state that there is “NO EVIDENCE” is to state a falsehood.
To denigrate those who are dead and leave their testimony for you is to dishonor your own.
>>Their signed testimony that they saw something, they lifted something heavy,
>>and it may have been a hallucination just doesn't hold up.
Your statements here are what just does not hold up. You look at evidence and say there is none, you hear testimony of the divinity of Christ and say you do not feel the spirit, yet you would teach others of belief in Christ? Heal thou thin own unbelief. (to paraphrase scripture)
If I were to say such nonsense in responding to your posts you would ridicule me until the cows come home (Note the posts over my confusing your names…)
I will bring forward the stuff from my post #531.to tmp02
Corinthians 12:3-6
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
So, Jesus is the Lord my God He is the redeemer of my soul, and the only Power under heaven by which man (of which I am) can be saved. I confess that I have committed sins of which I am striving diligently to repent, and through the atonement of Jesus Christ only have I hope of redemption that in the last day I may be saved with the just.
So, by what spirit did I just testify of Christ? The Book of Mormon also testifies of Christ. Can a work that is from the Devil testify of Christ?
>>Satan is a angel of light. Did he show up when the tablets were provided?
No, Please answer my question in Post #531
That's just one side of the story of Joseph Smith. Your church told you he didn't have an arrest record, yet lo and behold, he sure nuff did.
In 1961, Nibley authored a book entitled The Mythmakers, in which he ventured to boldly debunk assertions that Joseph Smith had committed, or had been arrested for, the crime of "glass-looking." Nibley (in words he probably later wished he could retract) went so far as to declare that if, in fact, Smith was actually proven guilty of such nefarious activity, it would constitute the most damning blow that could be imagined to Smith's claim of divine prophetship
If their name was the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and they recently changed their name to The Community of Christ, isn't it a little disingenuous to say that they are not related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? And in fact, wasn't the founder in 1860 Joseph Smith, Jr. the son of the founder of the Utah Church?
>>So ... do you think that the so-called Gospel of Judas ... should have a place among the scriptures ?
I don’t know, but it makes interesting reading and it refutes the over 40 authors who all agree thing.
>>Never mind that it was written 200 years after the time of Christ ...
>>which kind of blows any possibility that it could have been written by Judas.
No, It was discovered in 200 AD after a campaign to have it destroyed was over, we have proof of the Campaign, we have a book preserved by burial with “Saints” in a tomb.
>>The early church had dismissed the Gospel of Judas (and other similarly spurious
>>writings) ... before Constantine ever came on the scene.
Um who decided these were spurious writings? Is this why the apostles were fighting apostasy while they were alive?
>>I don't think that I've vilified anyone ...
Ok, Then sorry bout that, but on this very thread, I’ve had direct challenges to my right to call myself a Christian.
>>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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm ) disagrees with you.
The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
>>>>Is it possible that “Proving” someone’s faith is wrong is a pointless exercise? I think it is.
>>Don't you desire to have true faith ?
I have True Faith.
>>Don't you wish to believe those things which God desires that you believe ?
Yes I do, And I do Believe what he Desires me to believe.
>>>>BTW “It is possible” is a really bad debating tactic as it throws the doors open a
>>>>little too widely hence my mostly humorous response.
>>This type of argument is quite effective ... when there is a lack of tangible evidence.
>>Ask any lawyer.
If any of the lawyers who work for me used this in court, I’d fire them on the spot.
>>Lack of evidence ... should lead one to consider these types of questions.
No it leads me to consider the source… Done.
>>If there was any corroboration by anyone ... for what Joseph Smith said that he
>>read from the golden plates ... these questions wouldn't exist.
Read, Ponder, Pray for knowledge, get corroboration. If I told you to go to some library, you’d go, if I told you to go to a web site, you’d go, but you won’t goto God and you won’t accept the word of those who have, Sad really.
>>Unfortunately ... all we have is his single testimony.
Nope, I refuted that already too.
So how do I testify of Christ without the spirit.
The Church has never said he did not have an arrest record there you go mis-quoting all members know he had an arrest recorders.
We just disgree on the trump up charges of others prejudice!
Fawn Brodie, whats the differents colorcountry be there rebellious children in 1960 or in 2006, rebellious children are rebellious children!
if some one disagrees with their current faith and find another religion they think is better they join that faith and live out their life.
I have not made it a mission in my life to content with my former faith, I just moved on!
For me to think I needed to content would mean I also invited the spirit of contention in my life and than the Holy Spirit would withdraw from me as I entertained this divisive force!
no thanks I always want the Holy Spirit to feel welcome and not let self get in the way as I witness happen to many on this forum!
So, by what spirit did I just testify of Christ? The Book of Mormon also testifies of Christ.
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?
John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 1.18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 1.19: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
I think teaching of another Christ of a different Christ, teaching of one who is Lord but not God. One who is flesh, but just like a myriad of other gods that came in the flesh, would be denying that Christ is Lord. Search the Bible. The Bible clearly says: There is one Lord
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Gal 3:20 God is one. Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
You can recognize false doctrine by knowing the word of GOD. You must validate for yourself every doctrine you hear with the word of GOD (Bible). 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 don't understand your point,if one breaks or falls aways they no longer are a part of!
The Lutherns broke/fell away from the Catholic Church they are no longer a part of!
If you are talking about the misuse of the word related sorry!
Today CC has nothing in come not even the name!
Restorny, you were not a member in 1961 were you? What of Hugh Nibley's remarks?
In 1961, Nibley authored a book entitled The Mythmakers, in which he ventured to boldly debunk assertions that Joseph Smith had committed, or had been arrested for, the crime of "glass-looking." Nibley (in words he probably later wished he could retract) went so far as to declare that if, in fact, Smith was actually proven guilty of such nefarious activity, it would constitute the most damning blow that could be imagined to Smith's claim of divine prophetship.
The next time you call me "rebellious" or "vindictive" or "hateful" or "sour grapes," I will be forced to hit the abuse button. I believe TRUTH. That does not make me any of the foul names you call me repeatedly.
It is YOU that posted this vile thread, and it is my rightful place to dispute it. Don't post things that cause dissension then cry "foul," when someone addresses your contentions. That's just disingenuous.
In this you speak the truth. However all Protestants are called Christians, all believe in the same God, they recognize each other's baptisms, they recognize the same word of God.
Do you recognize the baptisms of the Reorganized Church or the Fundamentalist Church (Warren Jeffs) or the Church of the Firstborn? They call themselves Mormon and they believe in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and some believe the Doctrine and Covenants with more fervor than the LDS which has stepped away from some of the teachings in the D & C when they became embarrassing.
you of all people should know Hugh Nibley is not part of the General Authorities!
That's why I posted Bushman who writes from a secular point of view it eliminates thoes folks who thrive on fault finding!
So LDS are called saints which is mention 389 times in the scriptures and the name Christain is only mention 3 times.
Paul always called those who took on the covenant of Jesus Christ and keep the commandments, Saints!
So out goes Hugh Nibley. He is not credible.
Okay, have it your way. I will mark this post to bring up at a later date....Nothing Hugh Nibley says is valid. I've got it, and I will not soon forget.
The LDS call themselves saints, we do not. We call you "Mormons" or have you noticed?
You may call yourself the Queen of Sheba or the President of the United States, it doesn't make it so.
You can call me what you want, as long as the Lord is still calling me that all that counts!:)
I did not say he was not creditable I said the church never denied Joseph pass!
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.