SMILE
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
You would love this thread!
Nephilims and the Mormon Church?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622499/posts?page=25#25
BTW I studied Edgar Cayce for a few years in my quest, but reincarnation is not my thing!:)
Than you could go off to Ireland and visit the Tephi a daughter of Zedekiah
http://www.asis.com/~stag/jerrytea.html
Why do you assume this? Don't assume. The book of Acts makes it clear that the prophetic voice did not end w/OT prophets. Look, for example, at the book of Acts, where prophetesses are recorded in Acts 2:17 and 21:8-9. If the LDS is a true restoration of the original church...and you can't get any more original than the book of Acts, where are the prophetesses in the LDS Church?
The problem is you make the same mistake too many Christians make by assuming that the only ministers are those who are ordained. While ordained pastors are vital, ordination itself is not Scripturally prescribed. "Minister" just means "servant," of which all in Christ qualify. "Teaching-preaching elders" is a Biblical concept; but servanthood itself is not an ordained office.
My point is that LDS want to ordain an earthly living prophet as to the lone voice representing that role. And I'm afraid the only one with "all authority on heaven and earth" is Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20). All authority is in Him; not in any mere mortal's voice.
He is your Authority. Your authority is not in a Utah office or in a priesthood. It's in the Living Prophet and High Priest, Jesus Christ.
If LDS were truly subscribing to Biblical precedents, there would be no "general authorities." Where in the Bible do you find that as an office?
We can't reduce everything to offices. That's been the problem of Christians who reduce ministry to an office and a clerical collar!
When a poster is mentioned in a post, he should be pinged - even if he is a moderator.
Okay, thanks.
Ah, oh, now you've asked for it! :-o
Where do you get your authority? Our authority resides in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, which was prefaced by Jesus saying "ALL [not some] authority in heaven and earth has been given unto me, go and make disciples of all nations...baptizing them in the Name [notice it says Name--singular, not the LDS plural] of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
If your authority came from a line of living prophets, where did they get their authority? If it came from an LDS Jesus, where did he get his authority? If that came from Elohim, where did his authority come from? If that came from a previous god, where did his authority come from?
If Elohim's grand-god delegated authority, from where did that come from?
Run it as far back as you can, and you can find no Original, Ultimate god in LDS theology. There is no god from Eternity-Past. There is no Original, Ultimate Source or Author of Authority from which is triggered all other lines of authority. They were all created as mere mortals who ascended to godhood. Joseph Smith said matter was eternal. But apparently matter pre-dates any LDS god, who then in turn organized it.
Can you imagine a military with no ultimate chain-of-command where the buck stops?
Our Authority can only come from One who says, "Before Abraham was, I am." He is the Eternal "I Am" who has always been and who always will be. He is the One who created all things (John 1, Col. 1, Heb. 1). As Paul says in Colossians, nothing was made that hasn't been made by Him!
SMILE
Thank you for responding to that question. I couldn't have done such a fine job myself.
My commission is given to me directly from God, from his Holy Spirit that dwells within me. I don't need to talk to God face-to-face, His Spirit dwells within me. I don't need a proper Authority to tell me what God wants for me. It is in his Word, the Bible.
Excellent point. That combined with incontrovertible evidence that there is no direct genetic relation between Native Americans and Hebrews simply adds fuel to the fire that will eventually consume the Book of Mormon.
I think someone else could make up a "gospel" just as Smith did.
1) The idea that Smith did it in only a short time is misleading. He may have been thinking about the story line for years. When he lost the first 127 (or however many) pages to a good fireplace's worth of kindling he went on and completely ignored those dozens and dozens of lost pages. If that was scripture, inspired nu God, it would not have been skipped over the second time around. If it was made up nonsense then it shows how prolific Smith could be. Wasn't Dickens just as prolific? I wrote a huge chunk of a doctoral dissertation in just a few months while working full time.
2) Maybe somebody should ask these questions:
a) Why are there horses in the BOM when none existed in the Americas before Columbas in the last few thousand years?
b) Why is there steel in the BOM when none existed in the Americas before Columbas?
c) Why is there silk...
d) Why are there chariots...
e) Why is there not a single shred of evidence to support the BOM?
"Run it as far back as you can, and you can find no Original, Ultimate god in LDS theology. There is no god from Eternity-Past. There is no Original, Ultimate Source or Author of Authority from which is triggered all other lines of authority. They were all created as mere mortals who ascended to godhood. Joseph Smith said matter was eternal. But apparently matter pre-dates any LDS god, who then in turn organized it."
Excellent point. And in direct contradiction to both Dr. Nibley and early Mormon thinkers, the eternal pre-existence of matter, to say nothing of a multiplicity of gods, is a clearly Hellenistic concept. In fact, the early church councils were expressly formed to coutner Hellenistic influences in Christian theology. In claiming that Greek thought corrupted Christianity, early Mormons demonstrated ignorance of both theology and Greek thought by introducing polytheism and the pre-existence of matter.
An additional Hellenistic concept can be found in their concept of the Golden Thread which suggests that "the Good" exists apart from any being and all are subject to it. In Christian theology, the good is defined exclusively by the nature, actions and personality of God himself and does not exist apart from him.
>>That's funny. Nobody else has ever labeled me as a "bitter, twisted individual" operating "with a grudge against Mormons."
Keep it in context please; you spent a good portion of your time on that thread trying to equate Mormons with Islamic Jihadists murdering people. After refuting your comments and observing you attacking every positive statement that went by I said:
>“You by your posts here are a bitter, twisted individual with a grudge against Mormons.
>>You cannot stand to see a positive statement go by with out a challenge.
>>In all sincerity, get some help.”
>>It's a bit harder to do from a distance and not recommended for those doing "drive-by"
>> postings--postings that are then picked up as personal-attack ammunition to be
>>wielded by online allies.
What an interesting tactic, do you have online allies? Allies implies a military, or at least strategic alliance for a common goal, I have (at least I think) friends and acquaintances here and I really do wish you well.
Hardly phenomenal. Many science-fiction writers could churn out 20 or 30 finished pages per day - L Ron Hubbard and John Brunner come to mind.
Moreover, they did so without having to rip off prior works wholesale, and what they produced is actually readable.
Rushdie still lives in hiding in England with a Fatwah on his head.
>>I think one should be able to say any positive or negative thing they want.
Decorum please! We must observe the niceties you know.
>>I tried to ask Restornu what she meant when she said something about "things that were removed from the New Testament."
I’m sure Restornu would love to start a thread about things missing from the scriptures, Restornu, I think this is a very interesting idea for what is sure to be a well visited and lively thread here!
>> I would say it is a direct attack on my religious beliefs.
I’m sure no attack was intended, only sincere belief, you must admit it would be an interesting thread, maybe we could do them in a series, Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Koran, The writings of Confucius, Etc. ColorCountry, I am equally sure you would not object to factual discussion on the origins of the bible as we know it today, I for one am fascinated by the apocrypha.
>>her thread contained reference to Christ being "appointed"
That is an interesting turn of phrase, can you give ma a link to the thread? IF the “Appointment” came from God well… otherwise, humm… interesting
>>I've never tried to hide it. In fact I've been very vocal about it on FR.
>>You aren't passing judgement on me, now are you? ;-)
Heaven forbid! But it does explain how you seem to know so much, yet other things you just don’t seem to “get”. Someone who was a Mormon and left the church has, well, almost a foot print on how they behave. (Nothing derogatory here, just an observation)
>>So when is the last time you heard of anyone who spoke
>>to god "face to face" as is recorded in the bible?
>>(1) Jesus said, "if you have seen me, you have seen the
>>Father" (John 14:9). You don't need to go back to the OT
>>for face-to-face encounters. Go also to the Book of
>>Acts, where the resurrected Jesus appeared to Paul.
I just thought I'd start at the beginning... Genisis. As for John, Keep reading, John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Mormons believe that God and Christ are one in purpose, and Jesus being the literal sone of God is the express image of God, but Jesus Christ is not His own father.
Hey it's all good stuff, Read the whole chapter, why the twisting of Me, My father, this son business, if he was both why did he not say that? This was translated through many languages, by those whose belief will of course have colored their word selections, so why don’t we end up with Me, I and My all the time?
>>(2) Has Jesus appeared to others since then? I have no
>>doubt He has. But you won't find it in a document like
>>the D&C that reduces the "New Testament" into a "No
>>Testament." The problem w/the D&C is that it's not
>>noble. The Bereans were noble. They filtered the New
>>Revelation by searching the old revelation to "see if
>>what was said was true" (Acts 17:11). LDS turn that on
>>its head, putting the old revelation through the grid of
>>the new revelation. And they do that by adding the "veto
>>phrase" - "insofar as correctly translated" -- and then
>>using that as a trump card whenever it contradicts the
>>newer revelation. Therefore, the Bible is relegated to
>>secondary status.
The light of truth does not come from burning straw men. The D&C Does lots of things, disagree with the New Testament is not one of them.
Question, if something was translated wrong, how would God Document it to the Church? (Hint see the council at Nice).
>>(3) The problem w/the theology of a Resident King
>>Prophet on earth that bumps Jesus out of the way is that
>>the authority eminating from Commissioner Jesus is a
>>more "on-the-go" thrust. In other words, since Jesus is
>>now operating on a New Testament Covenant of a world-
>>wide kingdom and is no longer strategically operating
>>through a distinct people group like the Jews
>>alone, "sent-ones" (apostles) are vital. LDS try to
>>model an Old Testament focus where there is a
>>stationary "House of the Lord" (temples) instead of
>>realizing that people themselves are the temples of the
>>Holy Spirit. [Note also the heavy "Zion" theme where the
>>big base is Utah). LDS try to model an OT focus where
>>there is a stationary "go-to" prophet instead of "on-the-
>>go" apostles and disciples (Mt 28) who are led by
>>the "Sent-One" Holy Spirit (John 16).
>> “Resident King Prophet”
A really offensive turn of phrase, congratulations! The problem with your theory is that you start from Since your wrong, this won’t work. While an equally valid sounding argument can be made from the since it’s right, this is how it works school of thought, both can be destroyed by logical analysis.
A: Prophets who: (1.) Testify of the divinity of Chist (2.) Claim to receive revelation from Christ (3.) Receive their authority from Christ. Cannot supplant Christ, or the become nobodies with nothing to say, and no reason for anyone to listen to them.
With your first premise dead, the rest fall so easily to logic I will not bother with them here.
Mormons believe our bodies are (or should be) temples to the lord as well, but that does not obliterate the commandment to build temples which as far as I am aware has never been repealed (kind of like the command to Adam to multiply)
>>(4) LDS underplay the equivalency of the daily "face to
>>face" interaction between the Holy Spirit and those He
>>resides in. I'm sorry, but you can't get any more
>>intimate than a Holy Spirit who is in no way confined to
>>so-called living prophets, but resides in everyone who
>>is in Christ!
I agree whole heartedly with #4, but there is an order, even after the church members received the Holy Ghost, churches were organized, and order was established in the church by the apostles. If the Apostles were not going to be needed after the Holy ghost came then why did Jesus Christ call them?
In the Mormon Church every member is encouraged to pray about all the writings of the modern day prophets to receive a personal witness to there divine nature (See your #4)
>>(5) As for your alleged "face to face" prophets, how
>>many revelations have been added to the D&C these past
>>110 years by your living prophets? Has it neared double-
>>figures yet? If the LDS god is the equivalent of a
>>living, active, dynamic volcano, why no evident lava
>>flow equivalency of Scripture coming out of the depth?
>>Why has the mountain been so silent? Name 3 to 4 vital
>>revelations off the top of your head given by God
>>through your living prophet?
Revelations are now published monthly in the Ensign, all publications authored by General authorities and published by the church are considered “Scripture” We are way over triple digits.
1. The Proclamation on the Family (I love reading this)
2. For the Strength of youth
3. The Challenge to read the book of Mormon by the end of the year(2005)
4. My Calling to the mission field (Taiwan)
Whew! Now that I have answered your questions, when will you answer mine?
Restornu,
Note to self, add people you want to ping to a post before hitting post.
Sorry about that, meant to add you to the ping list before posting. My apologies for the breach.
>>The book of Acts makes it clear that the prophetic voice
>> did not end w/OT prophets
So, Off of the top of your head, name three or four modern day prophets in your denomination.
>> where are the prophetesses in the LDS Church?
Does my mom (Who always seemed to know what I was up to) count? {Grin}
Seriously, all are entitled to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, my wife has many, and could be called a prophetess if we were looking to use those terms. Now days Mormons would say she has the “Gift of Discernment”.
>> "Minister" just means "servant," of which all in Christ qualify.
Dictionary? Mine says otherwise http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Minister
>> My point is that LDS want to ordain an earthly living prophet as to the lone voice representing that role. And I'm afraid the only one with "all authority on heaven and earth" is Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20). All authority is in Him; not in any mere mortal's voice.
Agreed, and Christ can do whatever he likes with that authority, even organize his church by calling a prophet. (circular logic is so predictable, it goes round and Round :-)
>>He is your Authority. Your authority is not in a Utah office or in a priesthood. It's in the Living Prophet and High Priest, Jesus Christ.
Do you have a scripture to go with that, or am I supposed to be receiving revelation (pretty important revelation at that) from you?
>> If LDS were truly subscribing to Biblical precedents, there would be no "general authorities." Where in the Bible do you find that as an office?
Go look at how Moses organized the people, and you’ll see the general structure right there.
Yes, that IS what the brethren have told you isn't it. You don't even know me, yet I fit the mold of the vindictive, evil, ex-mormon. DelphiUser, your post says more about YOU than it does about me.
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.