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

>>I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone

It was obvious, nad I am glad you liked it.

Which is why every Smithsonian scholar knows to check the BoM before heading out to Central America.

No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.

>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…

Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.

Back up. You asked if I'd heard of chiasms before reading your post (again putting yourself in the role of instructor). Not only had I, I'd pointed out a chiasm I'd come across (although I'm sure it's been noticed by others). (Plus I hadn't even bothered to read your post that mentioned chiasm.)

But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said? Or were you not thinking again, and just threw out "your own BLOG" without considering context? Or perhaps you were hoping nobody else would remember?

Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.

Again, context. Pulling a sentance out of context, and then changing the form of a word to plural (while putting quotes around it, no less), and then demanding I show inconsistencies, plural, when I said inconsistency, singular, and already explained it, is slippery and less than fully honest.

It seems you've given up anything close to real discussion and are trying to score some kind of win for your ego.

>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?

First or Second book? Chapter? Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible! I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?

Here there are two possibilities. Either you're again grasping for anything at all to leverage points so you can salvage your pride. Or you really don't know, which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?

>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.

“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s I believe in Christ. ([long URL cut] ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!

Here again is that inconsistency thing. Since you reject logic, that's not that surprising.

Logic, you see, is based on non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both A and ~A at the same time and in the same respect. That's because all things hold together in Christ and in Him we live and move and have our being and He cannot deny Himself. (No, I'm not sourcing that. Be careful! There's pagan Greek influence in there!) A refusal in principle to be persuaded by logic means accepting contradictions, which means you believe in a Christ who can deny himself, which is no Christ at all.

Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)

If you'd like a good place to start, try knowing what you're talking about.

And while you're working on that, how about a SOURCE for where I said anything about "superiority of intellect".

>> when a little searching on the internet

Links please…

You've outdone yourself. Hey, there's a straw! Clutch clutch clutch!

Try my first post.

Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent.

"Incoherent sentences show incoherent thinking." --Me

Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.

The only thing I don't like is that "Quaker" part. I'm more of a Puritan.

>> No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.

(Grin) Such an authoritative tone, it really is hard to prove a negative, it’s much easier to just state it.

>> Back up. You asked if I'd heard of chiasms before reading your post…

Yep and I said I’d just take your word for it. It is considered bad form to post links to your blog from discussion threads that was my point not that it was not an answer to my post. Remember, I also had trouble seeing the article you linked to, and said I’d take your word for it.

But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said?

Not if it won’t come up on my browser (I cannot read a blank web page) besides that was not my point, you are putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do that, I’ll ask you to use sweeter words. /Humor

>> Again, context. Pulling a sentance out of context, and then changing the form of a
>>word to plural (while putting quotes around it, no less), and then demanding I show
>>inconsistencies, plural, when I said inconsistency, singular, and already explained it, is
>>slippery and less than fully honest.

You said I kept being inconsistent, I find no dishonesty in asking for you to show my “Inconsistencies”, I do note however you wander off worrying about whether or not I interpreted correctly instead of addressing the question.

>>Here there are two possibilities.

What a limited view you have, maybe I want you to ask a clear question before I try to answer it. You do appear to be very touchy, I have to be crystal clear, you can be sloppy.

>> which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn’t say anything at all, asking for clarification on a vague question is the mark of a good debater as it nails your opponent down to a specific scripture. Narrow points, precise speech = Good debating technique, broad strokes slipshod sourcing = bad technique.
>> Here again is that inconsistency thing. Since you reject logic, that's not that surprising.
So a link to MIDI and the sheet music for a song called “I believe in Christ” for a line saying “I believe in Christ” is not proof of inconsistencies; It was humor.

>>Logic, you see, is based on non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both A and ~A at the
>>same time and in the same respect. That's because all things hold together in Christ
>>and in Him we live and move and have our being and He cannot deny Himself. (No,
>>I'm not sourcing that. Be careful! There's pagan Greek influence in there!) A refusal in
>>principle to be persuaded by logic means accepting contradictions, which means you
>>believe in a Christ who can deny himself, which is no Christ at all.

A and ~A, All things hold together in Christ, Christ cannot deny himself, No sourcing (Hey why would we want to add any accountability now) A refusal in principle to be persuaded by (your) logic (which I find loose at best) has no bearing on contradictions.

Here is a piece of logic for you, courtesy of an Atheist I worked with:
“God cannot be all powerful because he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it.”
He thought himself so clever for having thought of this, I thought him, well challenged. Logic is not always your friend; in quantum mechanics for example logic goes out the window.
>> If you'd like a good place to start, try knowing what you're talking about.
OK, I’m more than trying, we started down this path with you telling me what I believe, I think I am the foremost authority on what I believe, I can put up a quick web site and link to it if you want… (yes that was more humor)

>>And while you're working on that, how about a SOURCE for where I said anything
>>about "superiority of intellect".

You called ma an Ignoramus, several times. This implies that you are not, how shall I say this delicately, my intellectual equal (on this I would agree with you) and that your intellect is in the superior position (about which I would disagree). You never did use the words superior intellect, you merely implied them. I did not put the words in quotes you might note, nor did I preface them with >> like I do when quoting a post.

>> Try my first post.
Your first post I responded to was a list of scriptures with no commentary on your part. I saw nothing in need of reply because I read the scriptures (with my perspective) and saw nothing that I needed to respond to (We truly have come full circle here haven’t we)

My post had the following text:
>>>> I have never lured, taught those willing to learn? Yes, Lured, no luring implies an
>>>>evil intent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lure ) As when I was
>>>>introduced to my father in law, “I assure you my intentions are entirely honorable.”

In your post you put:
>>>> Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent.
>>"Incoherent sentences show incoherent thinking." –Me

Creative editing = misleading – Me (please note you have accused me of this, and you are doing it here)

I reconstructed a conversation asking rhetorical questions. It is extremely rude to interrupt when someone is asking rhetorical questions (Mission impossible three, adapted by me)

>>>>Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of
>>>>disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this
>>>>is not you, you might want to change your posting style.

>>The only thing I don't like is that "Quaker" part. I'm more of a Puritan.

Well, then I’m happy to of been of service in confirming your opinion that there is entirely too much levity in the world

Well (Dusts off hands) my work here seems to be done. Your circular logic lies exposed, you have been insulting, rude. You hold others to standards you are not willing to keep. You interpret my thoughts and feelings freely, even arguing about what I believe with me, the author of said belief.

You are a charlatan claiming to be Christ like, yet denying your Christianity by your very tone. Proud, cruel, mean spirited and unforgiving if this is what your Christ teaches, then you are correct, we do not worship the same God. My God is kind and merciful full of grace and truth. I sincerely hope you will read your Bible carefully and come closer to him who is mighty to save.

God speed

Please excuse me for not remembering a thread from 2 years ago, but I do not believe I ever impugned the intellectual capability of Mormons. I would only fault them their credulity in their choice of religion.

Thank you for your openness my feeling about two years ago was not so much of a grude as it was that I felt out of the blue I was harpoon and that left me cautious, yet again when I saw your post again this time I tried to put my best foot forward, only again to feel your rebuke for my faith!

You say "I would only fault them their credulity in their choice of religion."

When I was growing up in Michigan in the school system and in the nieghbor it was always frown upon those who were Catholics because they always wore metals of saints,prayed to statues, and the virgin Mary, and was not as accepted as they are today, in the protestants circles!

Yet inspite of some of my family and peer presure I had a soft spot for Catholics I did not hold those feelings!

I have gone through the world fire for my faith, to say I am easy a believer is not at all true!

I am not so beyond awareness as you believe the LDS are so easily persuaded and than to continue to endur this endless heat from those who dare not give an inch of recognition.

When I received the witness from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon was true it was from God, it was beyond my expectation!

It was something that occured in my life that I did not know such things could happen!

At the time this happen to me, the person who gave me the book over a year ago, I was not speaking to we were business cohorts and we had a fallen out and I did not want him to know, yet I had to know more about this book!

How was this going to happen with out him knowing?

Well I had to let go of my pride and let God show me the way!

That was not the end I was confronted with the Kinderhook tales and the Walter Martin boogy man theories and John Ankelberg etc.

Before and after my baptism which was the most beautiful things for afterwards when I went out into the world the next day it was like a crisp new day an unsoiled page of my life!

The of the things I saw that day in the world was both wonderful and offensived to my soul!

The discernment was strong as I reflected on the religion as I knew it in my past, such as mainsteam Protestant and Catholic I could discern the areas where in those religions that the "Spirit of Lord" was present!

Mainly in the traditional music and Hymns and I also could as years went by discern all kinds of religious music that had the Spirit of the Lord and those that were just immatation!

I am a singer and very sensitive to those things I remember preparing Oratorio or Arias and the words would quicken to me I would see things in scripture I never recognized before or in history of major event and what really occured and not just a beautiful music but the incident became real.

Not many could I share with but I knew things I could not explain but I am sure as time goes by these images will be real to many!

I feel it is record in our DNA and as we continue do our family history the more we will become aware and know things byond our scope!

Even after the vision of the Savior, Paul could only be taught by the Holy Spirit, many are to witness to that fact in the Scriptures.

In each of us is stored all the knowledge be it in our DNA or things of the Lord, we will ever need and only the Holy Spirit can unlock and witness the truth of those things!

Peace be with you!

>> No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.

(Grin) Such an authoritative tone, it really is hard to prove a negative, it’s much easier to just state it.

DNA DNA DNA

See? Easy.

Yep and I said I’d just take your word for it. It is considered bad form to post links to your blog from discussion threads that was my point not that it was not an answer to my post.

Considered bad form by whom? You?

I guess you wish I were reduced to saying "I DID TOO know about it!" But I've got proof, so the only way to score your little points is complaining about my "form".

But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said?

Not if it won’t come up on my browser (I cannot read a blank web page) besides that was not my point, you are putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do that, I’ll ask you to use sweeter words. /Humor

Again, context. You brought up my blog again after I negatively mentioned FARMS. The idea, I guess, is that a blog is less credible than "scholars" -- except that's wrong. My blog is a highly credible source for what I said, because, well, it's me saying stuff. FARMS isn't credible for much of anything (except, of course, what FARMS says).

You said I kept being inconsistent, I find no dishonesty in asking for you to show my “Inconsistencies”, I do note however you wander off worrying about whether or not I interpreted correctly instead of addressing the question.

At the time you'd only shown one, and it was a doozy: When it comes to evidence, you can treat Mormonism as "true" in the sense that it causes you certain emotions, but expect others to treat this as if you consider it true in the sense of corresponding to reality outside your head. Since then we've seen some more, as we'll get to.

>>Here there are two possibilities.
What a limited view you have, maybe I want you to ask a clear question before I try to answer it. You do appear to be very touchy, I have to be crystal clear, you can be sloppy.

Now you're flipping it on its head. I have been crystal clear, at least to anyone who knows the Scriptures. Which, yet again, means you either don't know them, or you know and are grabbing anything you can to make points with to excuse your own incredible sloppiness.

>> which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn’t say anything at all, asking for clarification on a vague question is the mark of a good debater as it nails your opponent down to a specific scripture. Narrow points, precise speech = Good debating technique, broad strokes slipshod sourcing = bad technique.

Yes, it (your not knowing what passage I was citing) would say it all.

Now you've gotten off on what a good debater you are. Which is funny, considering you keep getting pwned.

There's only one passage it could possibly have been a reference to. DO YOU know which passage? I'm beginning to think you really don't.

A and ~A, All things hold together in Christ, Christ cannot deny himself, No sourcing (Hey why would we want to add any accountability now)

Accountability? You want me to be accountable to YOU, of all people? Try accepting some first. You have exposed as a complete ignoramus and what do we get? Endless self-justifying replies, boasting of your debating technique when everything else fails. I wouldn't be surprised if you finally sign off by saying your bosom told you you won.

Do you know THOSE passages?

A refusal in principle to be persuaded by (your) logic (which I find loose at best) has no bearing on contradictions.

As if you were a competant judge of logic.

You didn't say "(your) logic". You said logic. You'll go with your bosom even if it means a Christ who denies himself. That's faith in your own bosom, not Christ.

But nobody better point that out, because you say you believe in Jesus. Which makes putting Him below your subjective emotions okay, I guess.

You called ma an Ignoramus, several times. This implies that you are not, how shall I say this delicately, my intellectual equal (on this I would agree with you) and that your intellect is in the superior position (about which I would disagree). You never did use the words superior intellect, you merely implied them. I did not put the words in quotes you might note, nor did I preface them with >> like I do when quoting a post.

You are now the only one to claim to have a superior intellect.

Too bad you haven't got the goods to back it up.

>> Try my first post. Your first post I responded to was a list of scriptures with no commentary on your part. I saw nothing in need of reply because I read the scriptures (with my perspective) and saw nothing that I needed to respond to (We truly have come full circle here haven’t we)

Wouldn't my intellectual superior have better memory?

My first post was #618. I cited one verse and alluded to another. Neither of which had anything to do with your request, which was for a link. So I directed you back to my first comment. Which, not only did you not remember, you couldn't even be bothered to look up before you spouted off about it.

Go ahead, tell me how much smarter you are.

Creative editing = misleading – Me (please note you have accused me of this, and you are doing it here)

There was no creative editing. That was exactly the sentence you wrote. I can't help it if my intellectual superior can't write coherent English.

Well (Dusts off hands) my work here seems to be done.

Followed by two paragraphs of you sitting in judgement of me. No doubt based on your status as my intellectual superior.

Just remember: next time you try citing somebody like Hippolytus, check with New Advent first. Someone might show his intellectual inferiority by doing it for you. But if you forget, just accuse him of being sloppy for citing the Bible the way Jesus did.

>>Considered bad form by whom? You?

I’ve heard so many jokes about referencing your own books and referencing your own web page, I have also seen people apologize for linking their own site. I have also (I think on this forum) seen Admin Moderators warn people about posting threads which link their sites as a way to boost hits. So, Yeah, It’s bad form.

>> the only way to score your little points…

Where is that blasted score card anyway? /Humor since you don’t seem to know when I’m joking

>> FARMS isn't credible for much of anything (except, of course, what FARMS says).

Farms had some research (I found it Via Google) that I thought was interesting. The research was that there are no writings they have been able to find where Joseph Smith ever mentioned Chiasms, or displayed any knowledge they were in the BOM. Your denunciation of their credibility is well, suspect at best.

So, since you say Farms is wrong about this, Do you have any proof that Joseph Smith Knew anything about Chiasm? (The fact that they appear in the Book of Mormon not withstanding)

You (collectively) want to say he was a bumbling buffoon on one hand but a crafty story teller; a man who took secrets to his grave while saying anything just to get attention.

Talk about lack of consistency!

>>>>What a limited view you have, maybe I want you to ask a clear question before I try
>>>>to answer it. You do appear to be very touchy, I have to be crystal clear, you can be
>>>>sloppy.

>> Now you're flipping it on its head. I have been crystal clear, at least to anyone who
>>knows the Scriptures. Which, yet again, means you either don't know them, or you
>>know and are grabbing anything you can to make points with to excuse your own
>>incredible sloppiness.

Re-read these two Paragraphs, anyone reading your post would have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about, and neither do I. I have tried to be cute and have fun with this, but it’s starting to get old.

>> Now you've gotten off on what a good debater you are.
>>Which is funny, considering you keep getting pwned.

A. It’s owned, B. by you? (Dreaming fictional pleasant dreams, isn’t that a sin for a puritan?)

>> A and ~A, All things hold together in Christ, Christ cannot deny himself, No sourcing
>> (Hey why would we want to add any accountability now)

>>>>Accountability? You want me to be accountable to YOU, of all people? Try
>>accepting some first. You have exposed as a complete ignoramus and what do we get?
>>Endless self-justifying replies, boasting of your debating technique when everything
>>else fails. I wouldn't be surprised if you finally sign off by saying your bosom told you
>>you won.

You being accountable to someone would be nice, if I must be the one…, are you sure you can’t find anyone else? Hey, even puritans get married, have your wife look over your posts before you hit post, and leave me out of it (Irreverent humor alert)

>>Do you know THOSE passages?

No, because you did not give enough information, but being the diligent searcher of the scriptures that I am, I can guess.

I’ll get to the Biblical passages you did not quote at the end of this missive.

>> As if you were a competant judge of logic.

Actually, having had logic, critical thinking and Debate (4.0 average on those, Classical music brought me down some from there), yes, I feel competent to judge the logical merits of your arguments, what are your qualifications?

>> You didn't say "(your) logic". You said logic.
>>You'll go with your bosom even if it means a Christ who denies himself.
>>That's faith in your own bosom, not Christ.

In my post #727 I said :
“In my opinion the only unimpeachable source is God. Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do? I believe, that’s what I do. You are right about one thing. You will never change my beliefs by quoting some expert, you will never change my beliefs by interpreting some scripture, and you will never change my beliefs with logic because my faith is based on testimony, direct, continuing testimony. And that is something you are not involved in.”

You have misquoted me, interpreted my meanings with tortured understanding, and now want to insist that I am not a Christian because of it. This little quote from your prior post proves my condemnation of your tactics (not of you personally) to be justified.

>> Wouldn't my intellectual superior have better memory?

“The first step to honing your focus is to begin eliminating superfluous information from your brain and start entering it into your central database. This is emphasized by the popular story of Albert Einstein once being asked for his phone number and with him replying something along the lines of, “I don’t know, check your local phone book.” Whether this is a true story or not, it certainly hammers home the point of letting trivial things be remembered by something other than your brain.”

Your posts here are trivial to me. (Sorry, but it’s true)

>> Go ahead, tell me how much smarter you are.

I refuse to be goaded into bragging, but I do know my IQ score, and it’s high enough.

Now, back to your scriptural non quoting…

Confirm or Deny are you talking about 1st Corinthians 15: 11-33 (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15 )

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put• down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

30 And why stand we in jepordy every hour?

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Or did you mean 2nd Corinthians 13:1 (http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/13 )

1 THIS is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

These are the only place in Corinthians where the word “Witness” appears.

The post you are referring to (#741) said:
>> What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had received a "witness" (which actually
>>only amounted to a subjective feeling), or that there were actual witnesses, most of
>>them still alive at the time of his writing? But see, Paul really did believe in the
>>Resurrection, and since it was still recent, he expected to find eyewitnesses. And he
>>did. His own experience came last, even though he had experienced actual miracles
>>like being blinded and having his sight restored.

If I am supposed to find your scripture based on “Witness” you failed to communicate.

Paul never told the Corinthians “I have received a witness”, instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.

If you are trying to support the “we don’t need the book of Mormon” thrust that has been on this thread, then where is Corinthians 1.5 (since 2nd Corinthians is the third time Paul is writing to them)?

How about Baptism for the Dead? 1st Corinthians 15:29 (See above) when was the last time your church practiced that ordinance?

Now, back to your post…

>> There was no creative editing.
I the original author of the post being edited say there was. If you wish to avoid charges of creative editing of Rhetorical conversations, include the whole conversation. A recorded conversation (especially humorous ones) seldom have correct sentence structure “Yeah” for example, is not a complete sentence, but occurs often in conversations.

>>>>Well (Dusts off hands) my work here seems to be done.
>>Followed by two paragraphs of you sitting in judgement of me. No doubt based on
>>your status as my intellectual superior.

I never would presume to judge you; the state of your soul was not mentioned by me. I did however evaluate your performance on this thread, and your seeming double standards.

>>Just remember: next time you try citing somebody like Hippolytus, check with
>>New Advent first. Someone might show his intellectual inferiority by doing it for you.
>>But if you forget, just accuse him of being sloppy for citing the Bible the way Jesus
>>did.

I have been referencing from http://www.NewAdvent.org for a really long time, much longer than this thread has existed, Many of Hippolytus’s works did not survive into the current day because they were written in Greek and the church went toward Latin. (A topic for another day I suppose). my comments about you being sloppy are because you refused to source your statements of fact from the very Bible you are now claiming to source from. Optimally, sources and statements should appear in the same post, so casual readers can also follow along and even reference links as they are interested.

This is so boring, can’t you argue points of logic, or scripture, or something other than call names and denigrate?

To return to one of my first comments to you, with witty repartee like this, a man could get a lot of sleep. Oh yeah, you WANT to be seen as a puritan, well they were pretty boring too.

I’ve heard so many jokes about referencing your own books and referencing your own web page, I have also seen people apologize for linking their own site. I have also (I think on this forum) seen Admin Moderators warn people about posting threads which link their sites as a way to boost hits. So, Yeah, It’s bad form.

I don't care what you've seen. You've decided (as the self-appointed evaluator of the thread) that proving my point is "bad form". Of course, just saying I knew would be "unsourced", so in our intellectually superior evaluator's impartial judgement, any answer gives him a win.

Farms had some research (I found it Via Google) that I thought was interesting. The research was that there are no writings they have been able to find where Joseph Smith ever mentioned Chiasms, or displayed any knowledge they were in the BOM. Your denunciation of their credibility is well, suspect at best. So, since you say Farms is wrong about this, Do you have any proof that Joseph Smith Knew anything about Chiasm? (The fact that they appear in the Book of Mormon not withstanding)

Context, again. I brought FARMS up on my own as an example of special pleading. I didn't say anything at all about the article you're talking about. So "you say Farms is wrong about this" is just wrong. Which is it, sloppy or a lie?

Re-read these two Paragraphs, anyone reading your post would have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about, and neither do I.

Or maybe it's just you.

No, because you did not give enough information, but being the diligent searcher of the scriptures that I am, I can guess.

You should've just stoppped at "no", as we shall see.

Actually, having had logic, critical thinking and Debate (4.0 average on those, Classical music brought me down some from there), yes, I feel competent to judge the logical merits of your arguments, what are your qualifications?

I had all those too, plus I care about logic, while you, by your own admission, don't.

You have misquoted me, interpreted my meanings with tortured understanding, and now want to insist that I am not a Christian because of it. This little quote from your prior post proves my condemnation of your tactics (not of you personally) to be justified.

No, it just shows that it's over your head.

For the benefit of the peanut gallery:

By "a witness directly from God" you mean the famous "burning bosom" right? Or was it some other equally subjective personal experience? Either way, you trust it over logic, which necessarily means you trust your subjective experience even if it makes Christ deny Himself.

Your posts here are trivial to me. (Sorry, but it’s true)

Trust me, a few days after we stop I won't remember much of this at all. But if you can't muster up enough short-term memory to keep track of the flow of conversation, you need to give up having a conversation.

Confirm or Deny are you talking about 1st Corinthians 15: 11-33 (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15 )

Wow.

Again, WOW.

You really haven't read the passage. Probably you just skip over to the part about "those who are baptized for the dead". Diligent searcher!

But since you want everything spelled out in painful detail, my original post about the passage:

What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had recieved a "witness" (which actually only amounted to a subjective feeling), or that there were actual witnesses, most of them still alive at the time of his writing? But see, Paul really did believe in the Resurrection, and since it was still recent, he expected to find eyewitnesses. And he did. His own experience came last, even though he had experienced actual miracles like being blinded and having his sight restored.

So the passage I'm talking about includes a discussion of witnesses, a mention of the fact that most were still alive, and putting his own experience last. Now, for those out there who really are diligent searchers of Scripture, which passage might that have been?

That's right: earlier in that same chapter. But you didn't suggest 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, you suggested 1 Corinthians 15:11-33, neatly missing the passage!

You really blundered this one. Just think, you could have just said "1 Corinthians" and gone for the baptism for the dead bit just as easily. But no! You just had to add verse references, and now you're exposed for a buffoon.

And just so you don't accuse me of dodging the question, I Deny it.

instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.

No, he didn't.

Are you sloppy, or a liar?

I the original author of the post being edited say there was.

I don't care what you say.

If you wish to avoid charges of creative editing of Rhetorical conversations, include the whole conversation. A recorded conversation (especially humorous ones) seldom have correct sentence structure “Yeah” for example, is not a complete sentence, but occurs often in conversations.

Except it wasn't a recorded conversation, it was your failure to write coherently.

I have been referencing from http://www.NewAdvent.org for a really long time, much longer than this thread has existed, Many of Hippolytus’s works did not survive into the current day because they were written in Greek and the church went toward Latin.

Oh? And didn't you say his works were lost because the "heretics won", until I demonstrated that actually his major work denouncing heretics survived?

I guess your own posts are also trivial to you. That, or you'll throw out anything at all and get angry at whoever calls you on it.

my comments about you being sloppy are because you refused to source your statements of fact from the very Bible you are now claiming to source from.

Maybe I was hoping you'd expose yourself, yet again, as an ignoramus. Which you've now done.

>> I don't care what you've seen. You've decided (as the self-appointed evaluator of the
>>thread) that proving my point is "bad form". Of course, just saying I knew would be
>>"unsourced", so in our intellectually superior evaluator's impartial judgement, any
>>answer gives him a win.

Whatever…

>> Or maybe it's just you.

Yep, it’s me.

>> You should've just stoppped at "no", as we shall see.
You should have just stopped period.

>> had all those too, plus I care about logic, while you, by your own admission, don't.

Me too, me too! I’m rubber and your Glue, whatever…

>>>> You have misquoted me, interpreted my meanings with tortured understanding, and
>>>>now want to insist that I am not a Christian because of it. This little quote from your
>>>>prior post proves my condemnation of your tactics (not of you personally) to be
>>>>justified.

>> No, it just shows that it's over your head.

So, according to you, my own posts are over my head, I can make arguments that I don’t understand, and therefore need you to reinterpret them down to my level?

What a ludicrous argument, I love it!

>> By "a witness directly from God" you mean the famous "burning bosom" right?
>>Or was it some other equally subjective personal experience? Either way, you trust it
>>over logic, which necessarily means you trust your subjective experience even if it
>>makes Christ deny Himself.

I never told you what my witness was, and I don’t plan to it’s personal and too sacred for me to share with you. But it was very specific, not just a feeling, there is no mistake on my part.

>> Trust me, a few days after we stop I won't remember much of this at all. But if you
>>can't muster up enough short-term memory to keep track of the flow of conversation,
>>you need to give up having a conversation.

I’m ready when you are, no, I’m more ready than you are. You are a boring person to argue with.

>> So the passage I'm talking about includes a discussion of witnesses, a mention of the
>>fact that most were still alive, and putting his own experience last. Now, for those out
>>there who really are diligent searchers of Scripture, which passage might that have
>>been?

>> That's right: earlier in that same chapter. But you didn't suggest 1 Corinthians
>>5:1-11, you suggested 1 Corinthians 15:11-33, neatly missing the passage!

Neatly missing the passage, (Grin), and you think it was an accident, (Bigger Grin) You said you didn’t need to source, I said you should so no one would get the passage you were referring to wrong, you said if I knew the scriptures I would know the passage, I said you should post sources so you could debate tighter arguments. You said and why should I be accountable to you, I said you should be accountable to someone (and suggested your wife, if you’ve got one) I also stated that by not sourcing you could jump to any scripture in the area and say it was your source. Do you really think I went to the right chapter and missed the first 11 verses? “Witness” which was my supposed latching point only occurs twice in all of Corinthians. (It took me a while to figure out what to use to make this plausible) It does not appear here until the 15th verse, so why did I start with 11? If I were a gambling man I’d love to play poker with you! I set you up, I gave you a miss so close you should have seen that I was parodying you, and at the same time I prove my point that by not sourcing you are “Cheating”. No source = no position, you would have been thrown out of every high school debating class in the nation for acting the way you do here. Yet, you get on a high horse and say “me too” or “So you say” depending on the comments leveled against you. As I said, a good debater will always ask for a reference, which I did. You flatly refused because you do not seem to be able to play on a level playing field. So, I did the only thing I could, I tricked you.

>> You really blundered this one. Just think, you could have just said "1 Corinthians" and
>>gone for the baptism for the dead bit just as easily. But no! You just had to add verse
>>references, and now you're exposed for a buffoon.

Yep. I thought about doing just that, but you would continue to refuse to source your scriptures in the future, and this was fun. (I know you puritans don’t like humor, TOUGH!)

>>And just so you don't accuse me of dodging the question, I Deny it.

“I can neither confirm nor deny…”
I didn’t really care about the answer, I wanted the response I have elicited here, the gloating, the premature dancing on my grave, all of it, beautiful!

“Good etiquette dictates that the dancing on the grave not commence until the funeral is over.” -- Emily Post

The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated – Mark Twain ( http://today.java.net/cs/user/view/cs_msg/7200 )

>>>>instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christ’s divinity, suffering in the
>>>>garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.

>>No, he didn't.

He most certainly testified of Jesus Christ’s divinity, If you are saved, then he testified of the Atonement which happened in the garden, if he testified of the Resurrection, then he testified of Christ giving up his life for you on the cross that he might take it again after three days thus breaking the bands of death.

>>Are you sloppy, or a liar?

Are you stupid or just gullible? (GRIN) I love these when did you stop beating your wife questions.

>>>>I the original author of the post being edited say there was.

>>I don't care what you say.

You obviously don’t care what you say either. I however do care what I say. You keep misquoting me, so I keep correcting the record (which long ago started sounding broken)

>>>>If you wish to avoid charges of creative editing of Rhetorical conversations, include
>>>>the whole conversation. A recorded conversation (especially humorous ones)
>>>>Seldom have correct sentence structure “Yeah” for example, is not a complete
>>sentence, but occurs often in conversations.

>>Except it wasn't a recorded conversation, it was your failure to write coherently.

Have you ever written a “Rhetorical conversation” for humor? What am I thinking, a puritan writing humor? Sorry for asking, I understand why you don’t get this now.

>>I have been referencing from http://www.NewAdvent.org for a really long time, much
>>longer than this thread has existed, Many of Hippolytus’s works did not survive into
>>the current day because they were written in Greek and the church went toward Latin.

>>Oh? And didn't you say his works were lost because the "heretics won", until I
>>demonstrated that actually his major work denouncing heretics survived?

Straight from the New Advent Website, with links of course (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm )
“Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author wrote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer understood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writings”

I said most of his works were lost, yes. New Advent states that in this passage. I opined that if the Heretics won they would not work hard to translate his works into “Modern language and thus impugn themselves.

>>I guess your own posts are also trivial to you. That, or you'll throw out anything at all
>>and get angry at whoever calls you on it.

Not angry, annoyed when you try to twist what I have said, or take it out of context. The annoyance is not pride but that others might actually believe I said what you have slaughtered.

>>>>my comments about you being sloppy are because you refused to source your
>>>>statements of fact from the very Bible you are now claiming to source from.

>>Maybe I was hoping you'd expose yourself, yet again, as an ignoramus.
>>Which you've now done.

Yep, I’m exposed alright (Smile)

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.