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

He doesn't, he calls you his child.

I would consider it a sin of pride to call myself a "saint."

Pride is the excessive love of one's own excellence. It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins. St. Thomas, however, endorsing the appreciation of St. Gregory, considers it the queen of all vices, and puts vainglory in its place as one of the deadly sins. In giving it this pre-eminence he takes it in a most formal and complete signification. He understands it to be that frame of mind in which a man, through the love of his own worth, aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God, and sets at naught the commands of superiors.

BTW you can saying things you know in your SOUL why they are said even if you don't adhere to the faith any more you are just showing how weenie you can be to not respect another even family members!

I expect it from others because they are ignorant to the terms but when one says these things and knows better it is disingenuous!

I do not harbor or disrespect other faiths even though I don't agree with them.

I would find it abhorrent to trash or bash another faith or leader!

To engage in such behavior I would have to sacrifice my company of the Holy Spirit!

The two just don't go togather, to be in Viper Mode and think the Sweet Spirit of the Lord would also attend!

I do not harbor or disrespect other faiths even though I don't agree with them.

I would find it abhorrent to trash or bash another faith or leader!

You've said this before, but the simple fact that you posted this thread speaks otherwise. You believe your church is the only true church. You try to convince Christians that they are wrong. The intention of Mormon missionaries is to disprove the faith of others This is as disrespectful as anything I have done here.

BTW you can saying things you know in your SOUL why they are said even if you don't adhere to the faith any more you are just showing how weenie you can be to not respect another even family members!

If I could make sense of this post, I'd respond, but calling me a weenie and telling me I do not respect family members is something you cannot possibly know and is defamatory and libelous. I hope that is not what you are saying.

Oh CC you must really a direct line to the opposition today!

Again with the slurs. I do recognize the opposition. He is the one that tells us we can have all the knowledge:

Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

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.

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.

God, working through the early church, separated the wheat from the chaff.

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?

God did ... working through the church.

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

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

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

Is this why the apostles were fighting apostasy while they were alive?

The church has fought apostacy and heresy ... for as long as it has existed.

Many have come, ... pretending to be men of God, ... for their own evil purposes ...
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.

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

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.

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.

Unfortunately ... all we have is his single testimony.

Nope, I refuted that already too.

Not quite ... remember ... not another soul on earth ever read those plates. You all have only Joseph's word as to what they said.

So how do I testify of Christ without the spirit.

Christians don't forego the testimony of the Spirit.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
The Spirit simply hasn't led us to embrace the Book of Mormon.

I don't seen it that way I did not mention any thing that another faith would not say when talking about their doctrine.

Such Lutherans today speaking of their pros and cons or each protestants sec or any other faith etc.

I don't make it personal many have made it personal in stead of just having cordial discussions...

In each personal minds they might preceive it as personal but that is not being honest it is just different doctrines..

If I believe God makes a declaration to his word I am not going to stop sharing it, anymore than other should stop sharing what they believe!

What I am trying to advoid is being caught in these snars for if one is cordail and sincere I am interested.

I can't say that this thread has been cordial it been what ever one can hurl.

I have tried to have cordial conversation on other thread and still have to deal with thoes carring on from the last thread instead of see an LDS see a individual who is civil on another thread.

Even if one goes to the N&A forum exers have a need to swipe so to the exers are making it personal because someone is LDS..

When I am on a neutral thread I would never think of saying this person is a Catholic or that person is a Reformer it is not the place for it!

I can't say that this thread has been cordial it been what ever one can hurl.

Please show me where I said anything personal to you. I am discussing my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ period. I quote the Bible, I post from sources.

That you don't like what I have to say does not make me uncordial.

Let me show you on in the last two days alone what you have called me in case you have forgotten.

Post 583: "CC you must really a direct line to the opposition today"

Post 582: "you are just showing how weenie you can be to not respect another even family members"

Post #575: "you of all people should know..."

Post #570: "there you go mis-quoting... rebellious children in 1960 or in 2006, rebellious children are rebellious children

Post #546 :

Post 543: You got to do better than sour grapes!

"The only dog you have in this fight is that you are a bitter xers and are johnny one note bash mormons"

"You claim to be a Calvinist yet you are stuck on revenge!"

The Lord told us to Love One Another!

he talked about the golden rule!

he never told us to bat someone else over the head because they walk a different walk!

The Lord said let you light shine!

He did never said try to put out another light!

***

“earnestly contend for the faith...once delivered to the saints” because “certain men [have] crept [into the church]

You notices it said saints, it did not say christians??

Will this is an impasse for it could be said about any faith that broke away from another in those they were real wars for many burn at the stake who believed in God!

You can hold comtemp for the LDS I will obey the Lord!

As I have Loved you Love One Another, by this shall men know ye are my disciples!

Funny you did not post the whole thing and not all dealt with you CC it is not all about you!

546 is NOT yours!

"there you go mis-quoting..."

You were mis quoting I said Church not Nibly!

and rebellious children are rebellious children
are you saying CC this is not true?

"you of all people should know..."

if one has a back ground in it should they not have a knowledge even if they don't agree?

"The only dog you have in this fight is that you are a bitter xers and are johnny one note bash mormons"

Are you not a Johnny one note most of the time you are hardly on FR if the LDS are not around!

"You claim to be a Calvinist yet you are stuck on revenge!"
are you saying you don't go after LDS thread?

I was myself WAS Calvinist and I'm NOT stuck on revenge I don't even bother!

Whenever I ask a member what an anti mormon is, they say something like this, "An anti Mormon is someone who hates Mormons or the Mormon church, attacks it out of anger, contention, or hate, and distorts the teachings of the church to make it sound bad. They lie, and will say anything to bring the church down. Most often, they are bitter ex members who could not keep the commandants, or were offended by someone in the church and left only to live in misery and jealousy."

CC, I skipped over this post of yours earlier in this thread [#101] mainly 'cause I was answerin' other posts & this was a bit longer [not long compared to mine :)] but I think this fits what you're referencing at this point of the thread.

Whenever someone can't possibly conclude that there's anything inherent to critique about their body of faith [not their personal faith, mind you, but the source & direction of it], then they have nothing else to pin the tail of the donkey on other than you. Why, it must be you that's the basis for why you say what you say.

Why it can't be us you're witnessing to! We're Zion. And it can't be our scriptures you'd have any reason to denounce; our latter witness & revelation & experience & reason trumps your dead creeds [I recall a similarly worded contemporary slam of creeds in one of FAIR's documents--all while they were trying to downplay Joseph's slam of Christian creeds--how ironic].

"So," they conclude. "It's you. It's your anger. It's your bitterness. It's your hate."

The problem is as you & other have often id'd: that what they reserve for themselves, a "missionary spirit" is not their terrain alone. Zealousness of public turf doesn't have "Property of LDS" tagged all over it.

They can't understand that the very wording in the article as the basis for this thead [see my post #52] itself is provocative--that the following are deemed as "original Christian thought" that we "abandoned":

That Christians have played up original sin (vs. the downplaying Nibley says we should do); that Scripture alone is a fallacy; that embryonic godhood is truly "divine"; that "election" means we are "candidates for godhood"; that we all need to embrace polytheism [Deities Anonymous Club??] etc.

Here we're accused of "abandoning" these things, says Nibley, and when we object that Christians have done no such thing, we're effectively told to stop being contentious!

These are my feeling if I were allowed to do, but it seems post after post one spends more time on bad matters issues than cordial discussion!

The Lord told us to Love One Another!

he talked about the golden rule!

he never told us to bat someone else over the head because they walk a different walk!

The Lord said let you light shine!

He did never said try to put out another light!

***

“earnestly contend for the faith...once delivered to the saints” because “certain men [have] crept [into the church]

You notices it said saints, it did not say christians??

Will this is an impasse for it could be said about any faith that broke away from another in those they were real wars for many burn at the stake who believed in God!

You can hold comtemp for the LDS I will strive to obey the Lord!

As I have Loved you Love One Another, by this shall men know ye are my disciples!

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.