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
The only book that I could think of that may even resemble it in some way (some people have pointed this out) is something like J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
But we need to remember that Lord of the Rings was produced over a period of about thirty years by a man with a doctorate who taught at Cambridge and Oxford Universities.
It's quite a different thing than a book that was produced in about two months.
So the very existence of the book is an astonishing thing.
It was not something that could just be produced by an upstate New York farm boy just off the top of his head.
There are other things I'll mention in passing.
You might find this article interesting taken from the Meridian an LDS magazine
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/020121ringsprint.html
The Power of Symbolism in The Lord of the Rings: Understanding the Meaning Behind the Words
by Darren Andrews
Introduction
Generations have been enthralled by Tolkien's epic fantasy, The Lord of The Rings. Its pages have been studied alongside the works of C.S. Lewis at Brigham Young University, a society exists dedicated to preserving it in the spirit of its author, and back in the 1970s (in England at least) it was 'unofficial' required reading to enter the more respected universities—if you wanted to be accepted by your peers! Latter-day Saints have enjoyed the book as well, and it has not escaped being quoted at least twice in the past 2-3 years by the Brethren.
Tolkien's one-thousand-page-plus work is seen in a different light to most other fantasy literature. It does not teach lust for power. It does not promote wizardry or any of those other things some Christians, and some LDS, are—perhaps justifiably—wary of. Once we are familiar with the work, the intent, and the man, it becomes clear that this is a book that uplifts and promotes triumph over evil and not a surrender to it or its devices. Let's take a look, then, at the man, the work and the symbolism.
J.R.R. Tolkien, born 1892, was both a philologist and a student of mythology; a down-to-earth man nevertheless and filled with a remarkable amount of common sense and clarity of thought. That he spent so much of his time in fiction yet had so great a grasp of reality—both of the seen and unseen—is perhaps his most intriguing quality, and one that endears me to him and to his words.
A number of documentaries and other TV shows discussing both the book and its author were screened around the release of the movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, in December 2001. None, however, looked—except perhaps briefly—into the supernal truths wrapped up in the symbolism of this high fantasy epic.
Religion and Fairy-Stories
Tolkien held to the belief that so-called “fairy-stories” were not just for children, but a powerful way of relating truth1 to the minds of adults too—indeed, that they were primarily for adults and not children.2
He considered himself a strict Roman Catholic but his writings indicate he was not a man to blindly follow (or believe) what he was taught. He thought deeply about a great many things. Concerning The Lord of the Rings he wrote that it was “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision...the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism…”3
It is not, for instance, generally well known that C.S. Lewis, one of the most oft-quoted Christian writers by LDS leaders and authors, owed much of his own conversion to Christianity to his friend and Oxford colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien.
Cosmogony
It’s important to first understand a little about Tolkien’s world, Middle-earth, if we are to understand why he spent so much time creating it. This was no alien planet, but our world set in some fictional era and possessed of a history that paralleled our own. Tolkien built his world on the basis of language and then upon that world’s creation, its myths and history. To him, world-building (or subcreation as he called it), was as near to the divine act of creation as one might rise, in artistic matters at least.
Let’s look a little, then, into the cosmogony of Tolkien’s subcreated world. Briefly, Middle-earth began as a thought before it was created physically. During that pre-physical creation one of Ilúvatar’s4 [God’s] mighty spirits, Melkor5, rebelled. About the same time as this rebellion, Ilúvatar sent certain Valar (‘angelic powers’) down to create (physically) Middle-earth after the Vision of the One (Ilúvatar).
The similarities with LDS theology are obvious. The earth began as a spiritual creation before it was created physically.6 Melkor is quite clearly the premortal Lucifer, and the Valar we can compare with Michael and those other choice spirits7 (‘angelic powers’) that helped bring into being (physically) the spiritual creation under the direction of Jehovah.
The main inhabitants of Middle-earth, after its creation, were Men and Elves. Both were called the Children of God, the Elves representing mankind before the Fall in this Primary World. The Elves were immortal (they were not subject to the effects of age or disease) and possessed of attributes and skills above the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of Fallen Man. And yet Tolkien does not make the mistake of thinking the Elves wholly superior to Men. Mortality was considered a blessing to Men, and immortality a peril to the Elves8, hinting at the nature and need of the Fall of Adam as spoken of in the Book of Mormon wherein we read that, among other things, “if Adam had not transgressed…all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created.”9 Such was the circumstance of the Elves.
The Agency of Man
If we look into the actual story, or plot, of The Lord of the Rings itself we can see allegories of greater relevance to us as individuals going through life’s journey. The One Ring, the central artefact of the entire epic, offers power to those who wield it. Yet it is evil and will enslave any who so try to use it—whatever their intent. Frodo, on discovering the real nature of the Ring, offers it to Gandalf whom he trusts and knows to be both wise and powerful. Gandalf’s response lends much insight into what the Ring really represents. Says Gandalf: “Do not tempt me…the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good...the wish to wield it would be too great."10
The book, as we can see from Gandalf’s words and those of others in the story, focuses then on the theme of agency, or Will as Tolkien called it. The Ring therefore represents temptation to exercise dominion over the Will of all others, to subjugate their power of choice. And it is in the hands of a pure-hearted Hobbit (the meek and lowly of heart) that the Ring has least effect, a clear affirmation that humility can defeat the greatest of evils when God’s aid is implored.
Even in Ilúvatar’s intervention we see a respect for the free will of the peoples of Middle-earth. The story takes place (as most of its history) in a time of apostasy, when worship of the One is unknown or very limited (even among the Elves) yet Ilúvatar sends five (or more) powerful Valar-like beings to Middle-earth. They are charged not to dominate the Will of the inhabitants (a great temptation because of their standing and power), and never to match their own power against the Enemy directly except in circumstances prescribed by the One. Rather, they are assigned to counsel and guide the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. Alas, all save one named Gandalf deviate from this path of duty; even the head of their Order is finally corrupted after studying too deeply into the ways of the Enemy.
Conclusion
To my mind, Tolkien’s writings rank among the highest of fictional Christian literature not least because of the powerful and enduring truths hidden away behind the characters, events, and artefacts of his world. There are some wonderfully insightful words and concepts in Tolkien’s writings. I will end this article with a little excerpt from one of his poems. Some may recognise it as part of the Young Women’s theme used by the Church a few years ago:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not whither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.11
© Copyright 2002, Darren Andrews. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: The author wishes to make it known that the views expressed above are his own and not necessarily those of the Church or of Tolkien himself (who, it might be said, was reluctant to say too much on strict interpretations).
Bibliography
1. The Lord of The Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien (George Allen & Unwin: Great Britain, 1954).
2. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter with assistance by Christopher Tolkien, (George Allen & Unwin: London, 1981).
3. Tree and Leaf, J.R.R. Tolkien (George Allen & Unwin: Great Britain, 1964).
4. J.R.R. Tolkien: The Authorised Biography by Humphrey Carpenter (George Allen & Unwin: Great Britain, 1977).
Endnotes
1. “The peculiar quality of the ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality of truth.” ("On Fairy-Stories", pp. 64, Tree and Leaf). 2. Tolkien said that the “association of children and fairy-stories” was an “accident of our domestic history.” (Ibid. pp. 34).
3. From a letter to Robert Murray, S.J., 2nd December 1953, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 172.
4. ‘All-Father’ in the Quenya tongue (an Elvish language devised by Tolkien)
5. ‘He who Arises in Might’ (Quenya) though Melkor called himself ‘King of the World’. Melkor’s design was to implement the Vision of the One (that is, the spiritual creation, or Plan) in his own way. Jealousy infected him and he became the Enemy of all who dwelt on Middle-earth.
6. “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth…” (see Moses 3:5).
7. “And God saw these [noble and great ones]…and he said: These I will make my rulers…and there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there…and we will make an earth…” (See Abraham 3:22-24; emphasis added).
8. “…Elves are certain aspects of Men and their talents and desires, incarnated in my little world. They have certain freedoms and powers we should like to have, and the beauty and peril and sorrow of the possession of these things is exhibited in them…” (from a draft letter to Peter Hastings, September 1954, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 189.
9. See 2 Nephi 2:22.
10. The Fellowship of the Ring, pp. 60.
11. Ibid., p. 241.
About the Author
Darren Andrews is 32, English and has far too many interests—Tolkien being one of them. You can read another of his articles on fantasy and Tolkien at www.writers-and-publishers.com. You can contact him by email at darren@writers-and-publishers.com. He also runs an email group for LDS interested in creative writing called LDS Wordcraft. Kind regards to Ryan Orrock of LDSWriters.Net for allowing publication on his site.
>>Now this is revealing.
Is IT?
>>You set yourself up as our educator in history.
I am using things from history, Yes. I am responding to your post, YES. I am neither a history professor, nor do I play one on TV. I do not think I pretended to any title, or special education, just a believer who knows how to use a search engine, and knows what I believe. I also like to read, I believe I thanked you for the Link, if not, Thanks, so many here post their opinions with out any support what so ever (I myself have been guilty of this at times).
>>I take a few details and expose you for an ignoramus.
You send me a link that “Refutes” what I have been saying about my religion, I go to YOUR link and it never uses “TRINIT” in it anywhere. I give it a quick once over and find some quotes that I think support my position, and copy them out for you. And suddenly I am ignorant?
This is funny, BTW calling someone ignorant is an adhomonim attack, but I won’t report you, I want your post to stay.
>>Rather than acknowledge this, you give us an irrelevant cavil about the word Trinity, and quote a bunch of stuff as if you were making some kind of point.
I did make a point, you missed it, sorry you couldn’t keep up. My thought processes are irrevocably altered by becoming fluent in Chinese, so my leaps in logic which would be readily apparent to Chinese person may elude you, no need to be embarrassed.
The only one even remotely related is the one about "becoming God", which of course you travesty.
Believe what you will, I could care less, you (collectively with the Anti’s on this thread) are trying to “Prove” a religion (which by definition requires faith) “Wrong” which of us is the ignorant one? I am content to be labeled so by one in your current posture.
>>With Mormons comprising 2% of the population, this is roughly 5.5%
>>(Lying for Jesus) to 37.5 (Lying for the Lord) times higher than we should expect.
Our detractors are more computer literate? Our detractors have more web pages? It’s a strategy by a concerted group, Vast Left Wing conspiracy (grin)?
Bottom line, I don’t know, and don’t really care why there are so many Google hits for Lying for the lord. I am impressed you took the time to read all those, wait, you just added Mormons’ to your search, so you don’t know it’s not Mormons complaining about someone else. Well, we’ll accept your premise, for the moment, it’s always people talking about us.
I can state categorically that I have never “Lied for the Lord, God, Jesus, etc.” I have never been instructed to do so. I have never witnessed anyone else who was an active member do so (or I would have corrected them).
I believe I said earlier on this thread, that "The ends never justify the means, the means must always justify themselves." You are also aware of my position on “Keeping your word”
I do not believe anyone can be justified in lying for Christ. Jesus never needs to lie. His followers should not need to either.
Please note that I find a distinct difference between lying, and being earnestly mistaken. Those who lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lies See the number 2 refrence) must have intent, where to be earnestly mistaken, is to be willing and able to change when presented with the truth, someone who lies, already knows the truth.
Mormons believe we will be judged according to what we know, and that the judge, Jesus Christ, will be as merciful as he can be (I for one hope so.).
We had a great Mother Day I must say the Church is really coming into it own now we are getting very prime spiritual meat!
It is so sweet and tender and fullfiling!
We use to always get insight full lessons but this is we no longer stuck here the thought of the Children are really elevated!
It must be because of the Book of Mormon Challenge the Prophet gave for the fruits are sure manifesting!
>>>>Whether or not you believe it, you got to admit it’s
>>>>a beautiful way to look at it.
>>It might be ... but God disavowed the possibility of
>> such a plan as He spoke through the prophet Isaiah ...
>>Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have
>>chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me
>>there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
You always stop too soon.
Isaiah 43: 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.
Isaiah 43: 12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
So, he was talking about being the only "Savior" available. I ,of course, agree with the scripture, just not your interpretation of it. I say this is debatable, because we are indeed debating it. What say you?
Let me guess, “You are wrong, you will go to hell for your misinterpretation of the Bible, and your belief in other scripture” Yawn, Been there done that.
How about this, there is a specific structure to Biblical language that is known as a “Chiasm” Basically, you say what you want to say, and then say it backwards ending with a similar sentence to the first one. Notice how Isaiah 43:10 starts with “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD” and Isaiah 43:12 Ends with “therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.” This was a coherent thought, when written which has been chopped up in a most barbarous manner by the monks who knew nothing of Hebrew structure when they added Verses to the Bible. So they broke up what would have been a contiguous thought in the original text. I think you would agree that chopping up a sentence into “Sub” sentences can change meanings of individual parts.
If you are looking at a scripture, read both before and after it to get the context, see if you can spot a Chiasm, as this will tell you where the thought started, and where it stopped. Read the whole Chiasm, to get the context of the scripture
Here is a web site on this (http://www.societaschristiana.com/?p=22 ) there are many more which discuss how what we know now changes how the bible should be interpreted. BTW Yes this is part of the “plain and precious truths” that we believe was lost. Isaiah is a wonderful place to look for Chiasms, oh, and BTW they also appear in the Book of Mormon even though Scholars of the day didn’t know about them yet, so how did Joseph Smith? (Big Grin)
Please See My Post #707
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=707#707 )
Your post is not clear on this, have you read it?
If you did, did you pray about it?
I met some lovely Catholic and your not one of them!
In spite of yourself I was cordail to you!
I did not insult you nor your faith
To be con't...
Actually, the doctrine is found in Psalms 82:1, 6-7, 1 John 3:1-3, 2 Peter 1:2-4, Philippians 2:5-6, Romans 8:15-17, and Revelation 4:21; 21:7. From the very beginning, the Bible teaches theosis or the deification of man.
When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Genesis 3:22).
The implication is that had they been able to partake of the tree of life, they would have been like God in another respect, being immortal.
This is precisely what is promised to the righteous in Revelation 2:7, when Christ says, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."
The state of man is also explained in Psalms 8:4-5, which asks, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word rendered "angels" in the King James and some other translations is Hebrew elohim, which actually means "gods."
See also Paul's reasoning in Acts 17:22-29, where he says that humans are of the same species (Greek genos) as God and shouldn?t think of him as being otherwise.
Theosis, also called apotheosis, divinization, and deification, was commonly taught by Church Fathers of the earliest centuries A.D. It is still an official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches and is even mentioned briefly in the current Catechism used in the Roman Catholic Church (Article 460).
Though most Protestants don't accept the concept, a few Evangelical scholars have recently written articles demonstrating that Wesley and Calvin taught it.
The Church fathers often noted the term "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 22:2; Psalm 136:2; Daniel 11:36), indicating that since God could not be the God of false gods, these must be real gods.
Psalm 82:6-7 was cited by Jesus (John 10:33-36) and both passages were frequently used by the Church Fathers to demonstrate that men were gods.
The Book of Mormon is unequivocal on the issue of salvation by the grace of Christ.
Nephi, the first prophet in the book, wrote that "there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah" (2 Nephi 2:8).
His brother Jacob admonished, "remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved" (2 Nephi 10:24).
The last of the Nephite scribes, Moroni, wrote, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ . . . then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ" (Moroni 10:32-33).
Moroni, like Nephi before him (2 Nephi 2:8; 31:19; see also Alma 24:10; Helaman 14:13), wrote of the importance of "relying alone upon the merits of Christ" (Moroni 6:4).
Nevertheless, while the Book of Mormon stresses that only Christ brings salvation, like the New Testament, it also clearly affirms the responsibility of individuals to repent and come unto Christ and afterwards endure unto the end in keeping the commandments of God.
Jesus also emphasized the necessity of not only believing, but also repenting of our sins (Matthew 4:17; Luke 12:3, 5).
He upbraided certain cities and said they were under condemnation because they did not choose to repent (Matthew 11:20-24).
Jesus also required his disciples to follow his teachings and commandments (Matthew 7:24-27;
Luke 6:46-49 and said that they would be rejected at the day of judgment if they did not do so (Matthew 7:21-23).
While the Book of Mormon teaching that we are "saved by grace after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23), may conflict with the theology of some modern Christian groups, it is consistent with Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
Oh no. You've been that way for a long time.
Believe what you will, I could care less, you (collectively with the Anti’s on this thread) are trying to “Prove” a religion (which by definition requires faith) “Wrong” which of us is the ignorant one?
So is the Bible intelligible, or not? Do we have archaeological findings, or not?
Silly. You don't really believe Mormonism at all. If you did, you would expect it to meet up with reality. But you don't expect that. You merely expect it to give you certain emotions.
I think Jesus could bear witness to you of His Father in Heaven, and you would tell Jesus he is wrong for the Nicene Creed says...
>>I think Jesus could bear witness to you of His Father in
>>Heaven, and you would tell Jesus he is wrong for the
>>Nicene Creed says...
ROTFLOL
Wow, Warna guy will ya?
>>>> And suddenly I am ignorant?
>>Oh no. You've been that way for a long time.
With witty repartee like this a guy could get a lot of sleep.
>>>>Believe what you will, I could care less, you (collectively with the Anti’s on this
>>>>thread) are trying to “Prove” a religion (which by definition requires faith) “Wrong”
>>>>which of us is the ignorant one?
>>So is the Bible intelligible, or not? Do we have archaeological findings, or not?
Apparently, it is unintelligible to some.
Did you see my post to ColorCountry? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=705#705) Have you ever heard of Chiasms? Be honest now, did you know about them before I brought it up?.
>>Silly. You don't really believe Mormonism at all. If you did, you would expect it to
>>meet up with reality. But you don't expect that. You merely expect it to give you
>>certain emotions.
So, now your not only smarter than me, you are a psychic too, Miss Cleo, is that you?
I believe what I believe; you only have my words and my actions to see what that is.
I had an interesting discussion with a Chinese gentleman who claimed to be of the “church of science” (you can make a church out of anything by adding the church modifier to it) I told him and I will tell you, “True science is merely another form of Theology, since we are studying what God left for us to study.”
Mormonism does meet up with reality, the question is, what is reality? I have my perceptions, you have yours, somewhere in between is reality. One of us may be closer than the other, but reality probably escapes us both.
Did you want to have a philosophical discussion, or not?
Oh, I see, I am too dim to have any perceptions, well, since I am barely sentient, why are you bothering to even talk to me?
I will leave it to the readers of this forum to decide if I am a logical being or not, I believe my posts speak for themselves, so do yours.
Just a note about having such high opinions of your self, I read it somewhere,
“Those who put themselves on a pedestal often find it hard to get down to get a drink”
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43: 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.
Isaiah 43: 12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
So, he was talking about being the only "Savior" available. I ,of course, agree with the scripture, just not your interpretation of it. I say this is debatable, because we are indeed debating it. What say you?
Let me guess, “You are wrong, you will go to hell for your misinterpretation of the Bible, and your belief in other scripture” Yawn, Been there done that.
I say that the passage clearly speaks of the One and Only God ... and the One and Only Saviour.
I say that this is confirmed in other places in scripture.Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.I say that the belief that there is more than one Eternal God is wrong ... and that it cannot be supported from Bible scripture.
7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
You might want to rent “What the bleep do we know” this movie might help with reality, God, and our relationship with both, it’s about quantum physics, and God.
Here is a link to the web site (http://www.whatthebleep.com/ )
Lots of fun :-)
BTW they are not Mormons.
The oneness of the members of the Godhead is not intended to imply that there are not three separate persons.
In the Bible, too, Jesus declared, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) and "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:10).
That oneness of being was not intended is indicated in his intercessory prayer, when, speaking of his apostles, he prayed "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one" (John 17:20-23).
Clearly, Christ did not intend that his disciples should become physically one and merge with the Godhead.
Rather, he envisioned the unity of the Church seen by Paul when he spoke of "edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith" (Ephesians 4:12-13; cf. 2:19-22).
Similarly, in the Book of Mormon, though Christ declared his oneness with the Father (3 Nephi 11:27, 36; 20:35; 28:10), he made it clear that he was teaching what the Father had given him (3 Nephi 11:32; 12:19; 18:4) and declared his intention to ascend to his Father (3 Nephi 15:1; 17:4; 18:27, 35; cf. 26:15; 27:26; 28:1, 4).
He also spoke of having received commandments from his Father (3 Nephi 15:14-19; 16:3, 16; 17:2; 20:10, 14, 46; 26:1) and prayed to the Father (3 Nephi 17:14-18, 21; 18:24; 19:19-35). His statement that the Father had sent him (3 Nephi 27:13-14) clearly shows that they were separate individuals.
Christ made similar declarations to his Old World disciples, as recorded in the New Testament. He not only prayed to the Father (for example, John 11:41-42; 17) but he said, "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and indicated that the Father loved him and gave him commandments (John 10:17-18), stating also that the Father had knowledge that he did not possess (Mark 13:32).
That the Father and the Son are separate individuals is also indicated by the fact that Jesus had to "ascend" after his resurrection to be with his Father (John 20:17).
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.