The Book of Mormon Challenge

Joseph Smith America Prophet ^ | 2006

[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

[colorcountry]

Yes Delphi, you have been forthright in your answers. I'm not sure restornu has. By her quoting of the Bible, it appears that Mormon beliefs fall in line with Christian beliefs, as far as the nature of God and if we can progress to that point goes.

I think that approach is "less than fully honest." You may not agree with me however.

Again, I've said my intention is to point out what I believe the Bible says and show discrepancies with Mormon belief. If that "muddies the waters," then so be it. I think investigators are entitled to the truth - the whole truth. Not just the line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept truth.

[DelphiUser]

Yep, one "God" the God of this world Jesus Christ, and in his Father, and in the holy ghost, I seem to remeber also posting a link to the Articles of faith for clarification.

I need to go soon too, so TTYL

[restornu]

i wish you stop trying to impugn my statments

I used the scripture as a witness to what I say!

[DelphiUser]

>>I think investigators are entitled to the truth - the
>>whole truth. Not just the line-upon-line, precept-upon-
>>precept truth.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but we do get to the "Whole Truth" as you call it, just not as fast as you would want us to.

My opinion is that to teach you have to start with what people know, then lead them to what they don't, Kind of like paul when he started teaching from the point of the Statue to the "Unknown God", worked for him...

Thank you for the right to disagree :-D

I still like the mental picture of a two month old with a steak, maybe that's just my twisted since of humor.

I gotta go, wifes a callin'

[DelphiUser]

I gotta go, I'll come back later and see if anyone has more Q's for me.

DelphiUser

[colorcountry]

We will never become the GOD of this world. That place belongs to Jehova (Christ). Elohim (God) is the God of Jesus Christ and also of us. Perhaps Elohim God also had a God, but that is not entirely clear in Mormon doctrine as I understand it.

Mormons believe that we will become gods over our own worlds, of our own creation. We will start them from our family units (If we are married in the Temple). So the man will be a god, the woman the wife of god...or heavenly mother, and they will have children and continue bearing children into eternity. This is the "plan of salvation" and "eternal progress." You can look those terms up on either of the sites previously mentioned.

BTW, technically, I am still a Mormon because I have not been excommunicated and I haven't officially "quit" or had my membership revoked. So I am neither an ex-mormon or an anti-mormon. I am an unbelieving mormon.

[restornu]

Again, I've said my intention is to point out what I believe the Bible says and show discrepancies with Mormon belief. If that "muddies the waters," then so be it. I think investigators are entitled to the truth - the whole truth. Not just the line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept truth

****

No that is not what muddy the water

it is how the question present in a shock jock matter!

Things of the Spirit need to be witness by the Spirit not spin by the opposition!

[restornu]

I am sure if you were being honest what you are doing and that you are now Calvinist....

I pray some day the prodical daughter returns.....

[andysandmikesmom]

Well, many here have provided me with lots of information, and answers to my questions....and now it would be up to me, to read, think, meditate, and pray, about all that I have seen and read and heard today....

[DelphiUser]

>>We will never become the GOD of this world. That place
>>belongs to Jehova (Christ). Elohim (God) is the God of
>>Jesus Christ and also of us.

Didn't I state this earlier?

>>Perhaps Elohim God also had a God, but that is not entirely clear in Mormon doctrine
>>as I understand it.

It is Clear, God became a God the Same way we will (if we do), it’s a system

You really don't understand the doctrine, so don't teach it.

Please anyone reading this Go to http://www.LDS.org this doctorine is WRONG!
(I can see why you left if this is what you thought)

>>BTW, technically, I am still a Mormon because I have not been excommunicated and I
>>haven't officially "quit" or had my membership revoked. So I am neither an ex-
>>mormon or an anti-mormon. I am an unbelieving mormon.

Then you are breaking Covenants and it would be better for you if you had your name removed from the roles. With You name removed at least you are not condemning yourself by breaking your covenants.

My Dad Taught me a saying when I was a kid, If your steal for me, you’ll steal from me.
If you are breaking covenants with God (Whether or not you believe that the church is true), who can believe you here?

My Father was a Mason before he joined the LDS Church, He still won’t tell me about what happened in there, and it’s been over forty years. I have always been able to take him at his word, I only hope I will be as well thought of.

[colorcountry]

It is Clear, God became a God the Same way we will (if we do), it’s a system You really don't understand the doctrine, so don't teach it.

Dephi, I WAS trying to give you the benefit of the doubt since President Gordon B. Hinckley went on record as stating on whether the LDS Church holds that, "God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’" Hinckley told Time.

That you would accuse me of being unknowledgeable is disengenious. You know that I know.

You have already accused me on this thread of trying to hide the fact that I used to be a Mormon. I just wanted to lay all the cards on the table. What is it that you would call me? Apostate?

I am not breaking any covenant...none exists with a false religion or a God who is a god, but not the only god.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

dumb dumb, dumb dumb

[bonfire]

http://www.bcmmin.org/evolut4.html

I found this link very interesting in comparing Christianity/Bible with The Book of Mormon and revelations of J.Smith. One excerpt:

---

Joseph Smith at the April 1844 general conference taught that the Father was once a man like us before becoming a God.

- God an Exalted Man --- I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear,...God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...you would see him like a man in form ­­ like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man;...it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity(5). I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see....(April 1844, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 345; History of the Church 6:305)

[colorcountry]

Good link. The reference is also one that the Church recognizes as "official." You have to be careful of that. They must be "official sources."

It is strage however, that they keep referring us to www.fairlds.org and farms.byu.edu when it plainly states on those websites that these two sources are not "officially" recognized as representative of LDS beliefs.

[bonfire]

I have a question: THere is the book of Mormon, D&C......and what else is considered set in stone? Because so much of what Mormon's believe is NOT in the BOM, does it come from subsequent revelations of J.Smith? ie) God was once a man.

[DelphiUser]

>>Dephi, I WAS trying to give you the benefit of the doubt...

Fine, I'll take all of that I can get (Grin)

>>You have already accused me on this thread of trying to
>>hide the fact that I used to be a Mormon.

No, I said *I* was not aware of it, I said nothing about you hiding anything, and since you volunteered it, why would I say you were hiding it?

>>You know that I know.

I only you by what you post.. so Honestly, I don't know what you don't know, I don't know what I don't know so how could I know what you don't know if I don't know, you know?

(Big Big Grin, you Know?)

>>What is it that you would call me? Apostate?

Misguided, maybe even bitter and vindictive (since I called you that before it would be disingenuous not to admit I might call you that, although I think I might know you a little better now and probably would not.)

>> I am not breaking any covenant...none exists with a
>>false religion or a God who is a god, but not the only god.

You gave your word to keep the commandments of the church, whether it be to the devil himself, you should keep your word, or take the no penalty exit clause in the contract. To do anything else makes you dishonest, and frankly lessens your credibility.

[DelphiUser]

>>You have to be careful of that. They must be "official sources."

This is why I try to stay with the LDS.org site as I have been called on the carpet by other Mormons (who'd a thunk) for using "UnOfficial" sources.

Anything a General Authority (GA) says that is printed in a church publication (books, Magazines, pamphlets) is considered "Revelation". The I heard that someone over heard somebody say that his brother's uncles cousin heard... some GA’s name said “something” is sometimes heard in meetings.

My personal feeling is, if you weren’t either a first person, or have it in writing, don’t bring it up, look it up.

My $.02

[restornu]

CC I have shared with you just a few days ago that pres. Hinckley was not living at the time this knowledge was given so his word would be accurate !

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. [emphasis added] >{? Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added]

A spokesman for Hinckley, when questioned about the accuracy of the Time quotation, asserted that Hinckley's words were taken out of context, and that Hinckley was thus misquoted. The Time reporter, however, has made available the pertinent part of the transcript of his interview with Hinckley. Here is the relevant excerpt from President Hinckley's interview with Time:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [emphasis added]

Here we read that even Wilford Woodruff who was the Last apostle to know Joseph Smith stating in his last testamony there are many things he does not understand

[restornu]

There is a great different when the many anti LDS site love to distort and mislead so it is so convoluted no one can untangle or make heads or tails of it!

These sites FAIR and FARMS are Scholars who have studies and debated with other apologist and in their rebuttal even as here the rebuttals that you think we can give, many of their sources are more accurate and fair and let the chips fall where they may that is more than I can say for the opposite sources who try to fuddge!

I think the reason many don't like FAIR and FARMS because in their summary is also inclued facts or accurate circumstances to back it up!

They take the Sting out of Shock Jock methods!

UG see post 218

[DelphiUser]

Interesting, notice president Hinckley talks about it not being publicly discussed

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse."

President Hinckley does not say that it's not true; he just de-emphasizes it because he knows it can cause those who don't know enough to stumble.

Well said, if you are trying to tell the truth without giving meat before milk, but I'll bet CC won't like it.