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

If I create you, I am in authority over you (lest I un-create you). So that’s where authority starts. (This isn’t even theology, merely logic).

You can't even apply that to the family. Oh, sure, as parents are the ones procreating their kids, of course they have authority over them. But you beg the question. No one here was ever claiming that you don't believe that your version of Elohim has authority over you. So your "perfect logic" is aimed at a straw man we didn't construct.

So, let me spell it out for you, yet again: A parent has authority of their child. But that authority is not "ultimate." God invests authority in the government for the protection and safety of individuals. And if a parent abuses a child, then the government has the right to weigh in w/its authority over and above that given parent.

In addition to that, the creator-God's authority also trumps that of the parent. If you're trying to say that parental authority is universally absolute and is the ultimate authority in that kid's life, well, that's a very dangerous proposition, for God isn't called "Father" for nothin'!

comparing honest practitioners of a religion as used car salesmen is beneath this forum, and disingenuous as well.

First of all, you slam (by implication, not directly) all used car salesmen as dishonest--somehow believing that any and almost all religious practioners are somehow heads and shoulders above all used cars salesmen.

I would say it's more balanced than you think: There are more upright, Christian (even LDS, mind you) used car salesmen than you give them credit for being; and likewise, there are more dishonest religious practioners than you apparently care to concede.

I'm sure if you interviewed the thounsands of distinct religious adherents out there, you'd come up with a very high % who would consider themselves an "honest" practitioner. Yet how many JWs, how many New Age offshoots, how many self-improvement cults, how many voodoo and wicca and occultic based groups, how many koolaid cults are either weak representations of the original (at best) or are outright fraud at its flashpoint of origin? Who cares if folks are sincere in their beliefs. You can be sincerely wrong!

I mean just look at the high number of LDS off-shoot sects. You think those folks consider themselves "dishonest"?

BALDERDASH! Mormon’s believe no such thing. Christ paid for ALL sin, it’s just up to you to repent and take advantage of it. How dare you believe this heresy and teach others about MY faith. You know nothing about what I or other Mormons believe as evidenced by this post. You have no understanding and therefore no right to tell others what we believe because you either did not understand what was preached to you for years, or you are lying now.

Okay, I was a little careless here in that I didn't qualify this as I should have. It is NOT common LDS belief that Jesus died for Adam's sin only. But this HAS been taught by some LDS leaders [I have a copy of LeGrand Richards' book, A Marvelous Work and Wonder--Salt Lake City--Deseret Book, which IS the LDS-owned book publishing company, right?...1958, pp. 98-99: Richards, an LDS general authority, wrote that Jesus "atoned for Adam's sin, leaving us responsible only for our own sins."]

So, indeed, I'm not lying, right? (I was just overbroad in my assertion). And, since you rightly claim this to be pure "heresy" please let me see your denunciations of LeGrand Richards as a heretic. Or, you can begin now. Go ahead. Denounce Richards as a heretic who's leading LDS and non-LDS astray on this!!! In fact, why don't you come right out and say it: Deseret Book Publishing Company is a source of heresy. Won't say it? Why so quick to point a finger at me saying it as "heretical"--but as soon as you find out some LDS leader has published it under the official LDS publishing outlet, and sudden silence??

If I'm not mistaken, I believe deceased LDS apostle B.R. McConkie at least implied the same thing [my reference is p. 348 of Mormon Doctrine...but I don't have his book copy in front of me].

So, allow me to ask you: the LDS belief seems to be that Christ's atonement as it applies to salvation is that it covers personal sins in addition to original sin. However, Christ's atonement as it applies to exaltation does not apply, correct?

My citation for the latter is based on the official Gospel principles manual, which I received when I went through an LDS class. On p. 135, it reads that Jesus "became our savior and he did his part to help us return to our heavenly home. It is now up to each of us to do our part and to become worthy of exaltation."

So, even mainstream LDS materials convey this idea that Christ has won "salvation" across the board for all men, cancelling Adam's sin. Now all ya gotta do for godhood status is yank yourself up. It's almost like, "There. The door's been opened for you. If I'm going to find you worthy, then show me." [I guess that's the Missouri strain of theology showing thru, eh?]

I'm confused. Are you disputing that your leaders said such things, or are you disputing the substance of what they said.

Your debating method here is quite ineffective. When challenged with a quote you neither admit the substance nor deny the substance, but instead you simply challenge the validity of the source. IOW you change the subject.

So here's my challenge:

If in fact those quotes are exactly what these leaders of your church are quoted as saying, then do you believe that what they said was a correct enunciation of LDS doctrine or not?

Regardless of whether or not these guys were correctly quoted, do you agree or disagree with what they are quoted as saying?

CCing P-Marlowe; colorcountry; restornu

>>Are you trying to say that since soldiers have authority doled out to them through their
>>immediate commanding officer [we all know how the military is known for its sharp
>>adherence to a chain of command] that such an immediate commanding officer is that
>>soldier's "ultimate authority?" I thought the "commander-in-chief"--who in turn
>>answers to God, Himself--one of these would be deemed as the "ultimate" authorities.

>>So why is it any soldier knows where the buck stops, but in your spiritual warfare
>>where we're supposed to be a soldier of Christ (Paul's analogy), you pretend
>>commanders in chief are irrelevant to your role.

God is where the buck stops. We are his creations we answer to him, we always will.

I have said this in posts past on this thread. It amazes me that you don’t get it, but you and your Allies (CC’s words) apparently don’t speak English.

If I make a Lego™ car, and then decide to destroy it, I do not have to ask anyone’s permission. It does not matter if I have a father who can build with Lego’s or if he has a father, only that the car belongs to me, I created it. End of chain of authority.

>>Yet you seem to claim that just because an immediate commanding officer is the only
>>supervisor--the only authority he reports to in this chain of command--that just
>>because he's the only "god" in that young soldier's new universe, that somehow
>>making the claim "Well, he's the only god with which we have to do" gets you off the
>>hook of being under the authority of other commands further up the chain.

See above…

>>Furthermore, it shows extreme shortsightedness that you don't know the ultimate spirit
>>to whom Joseph Smith was reporting to. Somehow you reduce the LDS version of
>>Elohim to be the "ultimate" authority when you know full well he's not. The key
>>question to ask is, "what spirit" (if any) appeared to Joe Smith? Was it an "angel of
>>light" masquerading under another identity? [Gal 1:8-9] And what spirit entity was
>>really behind the scenes?

I do know, you have not been listening. Elohim is the ultimate authority to us; we are his and Christ creations.

Are you trying to be purposefully offensive? I ask because I am not sure.

>>>>we both know it wouldn’t change my mind, mine is made up based on personal revelation

>>Wow! What if Joe Smith had such open-mindedness?

>>I can hear it now. I can just imagine it in my mind, Jimmy Stewart playing the role
>>of Joe Smith in a Hollywood movie:

>>"Now, never you mind, Moroni. You just get on back up to wherever you came from,
>>wings or not. I'm not going to change my mind. My mind's made up based upon
>>personal revelation." [Then as wingless Moroni mozies off sullenly, JimmyJoe mutters
>>under his breath, "Sheesh. Gold plates from South America hauled all the way to
>>upstate New York when Arizona would have been just fine & dandy. Who would
>>choose to write a detailed history on gold plates anyway? What? Does he think I was
>>born yesterday? Next thing ya know this Moroni character thinks I'd believe in an
>>invisible bunny!")

If this is meant to be humorous, don’t give up your day job!

Are you claiming to be an angel of light? Or are you claiming to have more light and knowledge that me, can you guarantee me your message is “more direct” than revelation from Him?

I think you are pretty full of yourself to try to top personal revelation from God, but have it your way, convince me you know more then I think, what am I wearing, or pick some other miraculous thing to try to convince me you know and see all, good luck.

God is where the buck stops. We are his creations we answer to him, we always will.

Okay, correct this perceived dialogue to reflect how you would truly answer:

Me: Which god is where the buck stops?

You (as I think you would say): The only god with which we have to do. Elohim. Heavenly Father.

Me: So, this god, whom you call Elohim, has all universal authority? No other god in the universe or any other universe or any other spiritual dimension has authority he doesn't have, or this god did not derive any authority from him?

You (as I think you might say): I didn't say that. I don't have to be concerned with that authority. I only have to be concerned with his authority.

Me: But what if other gods or any other higher-up god pulls rank on your god? Does that not militate against your claim that your god has "ultimate" authority if another god can pull rank on him? "Ultimate" authority that is not ultimate is not ultimate. [Wow! Did I really have to say that, or have you just not been getting what I've been trying to say?]

If I make a Lego™ car, and then decide to destroy it, I do not have to ask anyone’s permission. It does not matter if I have a father who can build with Lego’s or if he has a father, only that the car belongs to me, I created it. End of chain of authority.

Sorry. Doesn't compute in an absolute way. Let's say you take that lego, and you put it in a cannon alongside ammunition, and you decide that your means of "destroying" the lego house is to fire it into a real house that doesn't belong to you (beyond your authority). It doesn't matter that you created the legohouse. It doesn't give you the authority to do anything you want with it. You are thereby limited, as your authority is. Someone who has Kolobian authority, for example, doesn't necessarily have Jupiterian authority, or Marsian authority.

So, if your immediate gods are limited in their authority either by planetary boundaries, galaxy boundaries, universal boundaries, or some other dimensional boundaries, then they are limited. They are not a totally free, sovereign god. There are limitations to their authority, for there was once upon a time when they had no authority. They were totally reliant upon other another god or gods for deriving it.

You are not creating; procreating is not creation, but close. That is why your authority is not absolute.

Hold it, hold it. Would you "enlighten" me, please, if you hold positions counter to LDS theology?

(1)Do not LDS believe that God's means of creation is indeed literal procreation? Does not Father-God and Mother-God have literal spiritual children up there who are simply waiting to inhabit bodies down here?

In other words, more than in any other faith, isn't procreation and creation linked in LDS theology to as high of a degree as you can get?

I mean, this theology is so set that McConkie said that the Father-god's paternity of Christ was literal. Brigham basically said the same thing, as did other LDS prophets.

And yes Heavenly Father did BEGAT His ONLY BEGOTTEN Son Jesus Christ! How many times need you say the same thing over and over let along in the same thread!

(a) Your Elohim has a body of flesh & bones, right? (Historic Christianity--no). (b) When you say any man is involved in a "literal paternity"--as McConkie said about the LDS Elohim, or rather than letting any other man do it--like Brigham said, then you are saying that a man had sexual intercourse to beget a child.

So A + B above set against LDS also saying Mary was a virgin, does not compute. You can't have a doctrine of literal procreation in heaven (spirit babies being born in heaven), literal procreation on earth, and Elohim having a literal flesh & bones body--not simply a spirit body--and then try to suddently spiritualize away the implications of words by Brigham, McConkie, and, I believe it was, Joseph Fielding Smith, without having folks draw conclusions that none of these prophets or leaders took any pains to leade readers to draw any different conclusion. Doctrine.

a)Your Elohim has a body of flesh & bones, right? YES

I will repeat again please don't ask this question in a few days later, or a year later etc.!

***

So what you are visiualizing is two Flesh and Blood bodies,

The Heavenly Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, NOT Flesh and Blood!

Luke 1
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It is the Divinity that is being begotten so Jesus is part Man, part divine!

IMHO

I do know the Heavenly Father part has nothing to do with the temporal ways

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.