OK.
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Prophet?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Apostle?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS prophet?
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
>>Okay, I was a little careless here in that I didn't qualify this as I should have
You got that right!
If you read the whole article, the point is now that original sin is out of the way, it is up to us to repent of our sins and gain exaltation, this does not diminish Christ’s work, it affirms it.
It always amazes me that those who quickly read a piece, then misinterpret it to mean it’s opposite, and then try to beat up other’s with their ignorance (a poor weapon at best)
>>So, indeed, I'm not lying, right? (I was just overbroad in my assertion)
Lying, that takes intent, and I will not presume to judge intent, merely correctness you may only be mistaken.
< Snip for Brevity > but as soon as you find out some LDS leader has published it under the official LDS publishing outlet, and sudden silence??
Since he did not say what you say he said, this goes the way of the dodo. (To quote one of my favorite films, that word you keep using, I do not thinking it means what you think it means Big Big Grin)
>>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?
Christ’s atonement as it applies to exaltation Please define this for me as I do not want to give an inaccurate reply.
I’ll try without the Definition. Christ’s atonement (at one ment) or to bring to gather as one) Allows man to leave his current sinful state and become one with god. Note the word allows, we have the ability to choose. This is from one of our hymns “For this eternal truth is giv’n that God will force no man to heaven”. Since the price has been paid, the original sin negated, even death has been overcome we are free to chose to return to that God who gave us birth, or refusing to partake in the atonement go to the Devil as it were. Does this clarify it for you?
>> 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."
Your manual, being published by the church, is of course correct (this one is too easy, is this a trick question? :-)
>> 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?]
You almost had it. There is no “Pulling your selves up” ( http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/23#23 ) we are “Saved by grace after all we can do”. We must do all in our power, and then Christ makes up the difference, whether large or small.
>>Your debating method here is quite ineffective.
I am not debating yet, as there is nothing to debate, I get so many un-sourced quotes that I look up and half the time they don’t exist or are misquoted that I won’t even bother to debate an un sourced quote that I am asked to confirm or deny, it’s a matter of time, not knowledge.
Source or don’t post. Presumably you got the quote from somewhere, post the link. LDS.org is a great resource for this.
>>Regardless of whether or not these guys were correctly quoted, do you agree or
>>disagree with what they are quoted as saying?
Context before conjecture I do not yet know what they were saying if this was taken out of context.
Bingo...what the BoM is saying here is that Grace only kicks in AFTER all you can do.
My question: "When can you say you have ever done all you can do?"
Hint: Never. We'll never do everything we can do. For we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans).
Sorry, that was CF not CC you guys need to go duke it out somewhere for the color part of your names, or get used to getting confused.
>>I'm sorry but you must be confused, I've never called anyone my "Allies."
My Bad CF in post 61 of this thread.
>>Everything on this thread is confused and confusing. I'll make it simple: THERE IS
>>BUT ONE GOD...ANYWHERE...ALWAYS. To believe otherwise makes you a
>>pagan and NOT a Christian. You however are free to believe any way you choose
>>to believe.
Thanks, but the OT disputes you, God himself speaks of other gods, and warns Israel away from them. When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism? This would be funny if it were not so serious.
OK.
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Prophet?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Apostle?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS prophet?
>> Sorry. Doesn't compute in an absolute way.
Few analogies stand up to being twisted, they only go as far as the point being made at the time, unless you are capable of infinite recursion, I’m not right now, maybe after I recover from this Flu…
>> So, if your immediate gods are limited in their authority either by planetary boundaries … then they are limited.
What is 1 / 2 of infinity? (Did you ever get to higher math?)
In my opinion, the rest of your post is hyperbole.
>>>>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?
Sorry to be unclear, our procreation is not absolute creation, because we are not self sufficient, Gods is creation because he is self sufficient. (He also creates planets’ but not though procreation although that would be a sight to see. :-)
This is taken from the tanners which is suspect!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=385#385
>>>>we are “Saved by grace after all we can do”.
>>Bingo...what the BoM is saying here is that Grace only kicks in AFTER all you can
>>do.
>>My question: "When can you say you have ever done all you can do?"
>>Hint: Never. We'll never do everything we can do. For we all fall short of the glory of
>>God (Romans).
Who said anything about earning the Glory of God? That comes “by grace after all we can do”. I can do everything in my power, then I know that Christ will save me when I die, he does not require that I run faster than I have strength, only as fast.
If you are asking when I can rest on my laurels, the answer is Never. We do not rest while tending the flock, nor on the battle field, after this life is over there will be plenty of time to “Rest up”, but I believe only those in hell will be bored (think of it eternity after eternity with nothing to do.. Hell)
When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism? This would be funny if it were not so serious.
So ... are you saying that ... because your finite mind cannot understand how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ... can all be the One Eternal God, ... that it is impossible ?
Praise be to God ... that all does not depned upon your understanding.
That’s not a link, this is (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm )
1) There are many gods, God was once a man.
2) Christ is the literal son of God the Father.
3) I do not Believe that Adam is God the Father (personal Belief here), but this doctrine was once taught, and now is not.
From the site I linked (an anti-Mormon site I might add).
“In all fairness to the Mormon leaders it should be stated that they no longer teach the Adam-God doctrine, even though some members of the church still believe it. Anyone who is caught teaching this doctrine is liable to be excommunicated. This, however, shows the inconsistency of the Mormon church, for they say that Brigham Young was a prophet, and at the same time they will excommunicate a person for believing in his teachings.”
(Teaching and Believing ar two different things)
We do not now teach this, it was once taught, we both admit that it was taught, and that it is now not taught, we also at one time practiced polygamy, now we do not. This is one of the challenges, and blessings of having continual revelation, things can be changed as our ability to ask better questions of the lord increases. Have you never had an epiphany that expanded your understanding?
Why did you ask this?
Are you trying to Shake my faith? (Not even Close).
If you were trying to shake anyone’s faith, what a despicable thing to attempt.
So don't respond to the substance of what your prophets have to say, but attack the messenger who draws it to your attention? Is that the best debating tactic you guys have?
Ok, if you mistrust the "tanners" then here is a link to the Journal of Discourses:
>>>> When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on
>>>> his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism?
>>>> This would be funny if it were not so serious.
>>So ... are you saying that ... because your finite mind cannot understand how the
>>Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ... can all be the One Eternal God, ... that it
>>is impossible ?
>>Praise be to God ... that all does not depend upon your understanding.
My finite mind is not the question here, and boy am I glad that all does not depend on my understanding.
We are commanded to get to know God and Chist, (John 17: 3 http://scriptures.lds.org/john/17/3#3 )
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
“Knowing God” kind of implies knowing that he and Christ (both listed separately here) are not the same personage.
No I would rather read what he said the pages before and after...
Brigham always spoke in a way to keep folks awake and focus on what he was saying and many time when he finish it was not always what excerpt that are selected!
You know this you are been around for a long time on this forum!
As now I don't have my Gospel CD to verify!
I'm merely trying to get some clarity here. As Dennis Prager always says, I prefer clarity to agreement. You seem to claim that you worship the same God and the same Jesus that I worship. I believe that in light of what your Apostles and Prophets have had to say on the subject, that it is inconceivable that we both worship the same God or the same Jesus.
Are you trying to Shake my faith? (Not even Close). If you were trying to shake anyone’s faith, what a despicable thing to attempt.
I'm not trying to shake your faith. That is not my job. I'm simply trying to show that the faith that you have is not the same faith that I have. I'm merely trying to show that the Jesus of mormonism and the Jesus of reformation Christianity are not the same person. I am simply trying to show that the God of Mormonism and the God of traditional Christianity are not the same God.
You may very well be right and I may very well be wrong. But both of us can't be right. We worship two entirely different beings. I think that Brighan Young and just about every Mormon prophet before him and after him made that point and I am in agreement with Brigham Young that what you guys believe about the Nature of God and what I and most of my protestant friends on this thread believe are wholly incompatible.
It's a shame you can't see to agree on that point. I don't know why you think that we all believe alike. We don't. We're not even close. That apparently was why Joseph Smith was supposedly called to restore the Church, wasn't it? Because all of us Protestants were teaching what was abominable to the God that you worship?
Look Delphi, we simply do not worship the same God. At least one of us is wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. But it is impossible that we are both right.
Now that being said, do you agree or disagree with your prophets who were quoted in the Journal of Discourses? If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why you are correct in your doctrinal beliefs and the "prophet of God" is wrong.
Let's try and get a little clarity here. I am not attempting to get you to agree with me. I simply want to show people who are reading this what the essential differences are between Mormonism and traditional and reformation Christianity.
I can assure you I worship the same Godhead that is in the Bible I moved from Presbyterian to the fulness of the Gosple!
But you do not worship the same God as me or any of the other protestants on this thread. I moved away from Mormonism and only found God (the real one) after I heard the real gospel preached (which is not the same gospel that the Mormons preach).
I no longer worship the god of Mormonism. The god of Mormonism is not the same God I worship now. Not even close.
I answered in the post you are responding to.
He is the Same Jesus Christ, but our perception of him is different (do you know the parable of the five blind men and the elephant?)
>>Now that being said, do you agree or disagree with your prophets who were quoted in
>> the Journal of Discourses? If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why you are
>>correct in your doctrinal beliefs and the "prophet of God" is wrong.
What does this have to do with your stated purpose?
>>I'm simply trying to show that the faith that you have is not the same faith that I have.
Are you being entirely truthful in stating your motives here?
These appear to be carefully engineered “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions.
Have you ever researched the council at Nice? (The Nicene Creed came from there) They discussed some of the same things we are (plurality of God, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, etc).
Have you ever looked into the sale of indulgences?
How about the behavior of the early popes?
There are things there that would curl your hair (if it’s not already curly) (GRIN)
In my opinion these things are not an indicator of the faith of the Catholics I meet and I would not ask any one of them how they feel about that, or if they agree, it would be just plain rude.
>> I no longer worship the god of Mormonism. The god of Mormonism is not the same
>>God I worship now. Not even close.
So it is truly said they can leave the church, but they just can’t leave the church alone.
The “Mormon God is a god of accountability, the perception I have of the protestant God is that all you have to do is say “I believe” and go on sinning, because “God will take care of it.” and you have no responsibility to do anything.
But even so, I believe we are talking about the same “Historical” figures, the same people. As for who is right, we’ll have to talk about that after judgment day
(or you can watch South Park)
(I have the clip of them saying it was the Mormons here somewhere)
Apparently the Jesus that you believe in is not even the same Jesus that Brigham Young believed in. Brigham Young apparently taught that Jesus was the child of Adam and Mary (one of his celestial wives).
Apparently you don't believe that, so in essence the Jesus that Brigham Young believed in was a fairy tale Jesus of his own mind and not the real Jesus. Likewise the Jesus that I believe in is not the same Jesus that you believe in. There is the real Jesus and the fairy tale Jesus.
The fact is that at least one of us believes in a fairy tale Jesus, because we certainly don't both believe in the same Jesus.
The Jesus I believe in was always God and was never anything less than God. He created (he didn't form but he created from nothing) everything that now exists or ever existed in the universe. Your Jesus was not God from all eternity, but was somehow exalted to that position after he was created as a spirit child of God the Father-- who Himself used to be a man like us.
I think it is safe to conclude that the Jesus that I believe in is not the same Jesus that you believe in.
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.