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

The only way to have a relationship with god is to be like him

Are you like your parents? Probably. Did you have a choice in determining your "likenesses" to them? A few, yes. Most? Probably not. That's also the way it works in the spiritual, born-again world.

Once we're born again, we indeed are like him in significant ways. We continue to grow to be like him just like on earth; as we grow, in increasing ways we become alike (and yet distinct) from our parents.

Performance = sin or righteousness (It’s really that simple).

God reckoned [accounted; credited] his faith as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3-6, 9-11, 22; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23). If we don't understand these verses, we might as well chuck them...cross them out w/a pen. Because to too many works-based folks, they are like another language.

Hey, if I got ahold of your bank account and put a whole lot of $ in it (if I had it) based upon how much faith you had in me to put it in (if you had such faith), that explains reckoning...accounting...crediting. You would have to know me enough to trust me (faith). And if I was magnanimous & gracious enough, you would not have to be worthy enough for me to put it in.

Our spiritual bank account is bankrupt before an all-holy God. But if we believe His righteousness can be placed in our account, and we can draw off of it not only in the life to come but now [inside-out righteousness lived now], then "performance" is really a question of..."Is God's $ deposited in your life account being invested well in the personal righteousness being lived out?" [Obviously, stewards can have what was there's to manage taken away from them; they can lose it].

It's NOT an issue of our own meager resources as much as drawing upon God's massive resources. Note that it's the fruit of the Spirit's tree...it's NOT the fruit of your tree that Paul told the Galatians to develop. The Spirit's fruit is a bumper crop. Yours? Well, I don't know yours, but I do know it's no comparison.

In my theological thinking, who gets the glory? The Holy Spirit (it's HIS fruit). God (it's His resources in my account, thereby highlighting HIS graciousness). I would also rather have a church w/ millions of "Christ-ones" who displayed Christ's very own righteousness live out through them than billions of others trying to muster their own righteousness.

In your theological thinking, who gets the glory? You said it: It's your performance. (I'll call ahead & tell God to move over; another god is acomin'.)

Attempting to shake anyone’s faith is despicable, whether you believe their religion or not.

There were no qualifiers on this statement originally. And, in addition, "denigration" is in the mind of the beholder. For example, as you read through this below, imagine that the descriptions of Joseph's first visions were being applied to the LDS Church:

all creeds an abomination in his sight [not denigration, eh?...my, that won't shake the faith of the faithful, eh?]

professors were all corrupt [who even on the most flaming of any thread labels LDS "all corrupt" NONE!!!]

powerless godliness

did not adorn their profession by a holy walk [is this, too, a JoeSmith compliment from his memory as a 15-year-old?] [1831-1832 vision account]

Or maybe these uplifting words (1839 vision account] of the prophet are the non-denigrating references you were thinking of: "it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of botht he Priests and the Converts were more pretended than real, for a scene of great confusion and bad feelings ensued. Priest contending against priest, and convert against convert so that all their good feelings one for another (if they ever had any)..."

Again, deal with the obvious. Any missionary visit is going to try to encompass the First Vision, right? Well, then, what is the content of the First Vision as espoused by J. Smith?

To bring that out, allow me to frame it as a scripted convo I'm having with Missionary Brown:

Missionary Brown: "Joseph Smith received a vision from the Lord that brought us the restored gospel."

Me: "What was the content of that first vision, and more importantly, what did Joseph already believe prior to having received this first vision? I happen to have several accounts of this vision with me. Would you mind reading the sections I've underlined?"

Missionary Brown: "Sure. 'All their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.''"

Me: "I have an LDS friend who says nobody should denigrate another's faith--whether they believe in it or not. Don't you think that the above comment denigrates creeds and Christian leaders and members alike?--I mean you can't get much worse than they they're an "abomination in his sight" and "that their professors were ALL corrupt" and having powerless godliness."

Missionary Brown: "Well, you have to understand that Joseph wasn't speaking of his own experience or vantage point. He was merely a mouthpiece of God--kind of like a play-by-play commentator whose telling things the way they were at that point in American history."

Me: "What if I was to tell you that in two of Joseph's many versions of the 'First Vision,' he explained that this was his own understanding as a 15-year-old kid--that this understanding permeated his belief system before he even encountered any other-worldly being?"

Missionary Brown: "I'm from Missouri. So you've got to show me."

Me: "Well, let's first go to the 1831-1832 vision, as published by BYU & other LDS sources. Let's look at Joseph's pre-vision worldview that he held between the ages of 12 & 15, and please note the words I underlined...especially that he was a grandiouse denominational philospher already between the ages of 12 & 15:

At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that instead of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul. Thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind My mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that mand did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world."

Missionary Brown: "So?"

Me: "Well look! Joseph, between the ages of 12 & 15, prior to any vision [he goes on & THEN describes the vision] already had concluded that (a) mankind has "apostatized" from the faith; (b) There was "no society or denomination that built upon the gospel"; (c) the "world of mankind" consisted of "abominations" and (d) they "didn't adorn their profession of a holy walk"

Missionary Brown: "So, God was looking for someone who saw the world through His eyes."

Me: "What this shows is that Jo. Smith put his own worldviews in a divine entity's mouth. "abominations" of mankind generally became "abominations" of the church; "apostatize" became the foundational doctrine of the great apostasy; the gospelless societies & denominations meant a new church to come; and "didn't adorn their profession of a holy walk" became "that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.''"

Missionary Brown: "Well, that's your opinion."

Me: "Well, the 1839 version, as recorded by James Mulholland, shows the same thing. In that version, at one point, again describing his 15th year, he says of folks in other denominations: "it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the Priests and the Converts were more pretended than real" [see the linkage to the lack of godliness comment?]. Again, it led to a 15 yo asking, "In the midst of this war of words, and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together?"

Me: "See, the pre-visited Joseph Smith already was thinking "they [were] all wrong together"...and wonder of wonder, the "personage" happened to confirm that exact worldview by telling him that, indeed, they were all wrong, and that he should join none of them.

Me: "My. How perceptive of this backwoods 12 to 15 yo to have his inner thoughts confirmed by this God in a direct visitation."

>> In your theological thinking, who gets the glory?
>>You said it: It's your performance.
>>(I'll call ahead & tell God to move over; another god is acomin'.)

In post 438 you said “Did you know eternal life is now because it's based on a faith relationship of who you know and not based upon performance?”

That is where the word performance cane in. I never said my performance, I said “performance = sin or righteousness”

Can you be saved in unrepented sin?
If you repent, then sin again (without repenting), do you not have unrepented sin?
If you repent, then keep all the commandments, which includes actions you are commanded to take, and continued repentance, are you working your way to heaven?
Are you saved after all you can do? (Being commanded to do your best, so to keep that commandment you do everything you can, so that you are indeed repentant.)

>>Please define "saved."

Saved: To enter into the rest of god; To achieve a level of Glory in God’s kingdom. (http://scriptures.lds.org/tgs/slvtnbyg ) Although this one just refers you to other topics, as you know Mormon’s do not use the term “Saved” since it denotes passivity, and lack of responsibility.

>>Please define "exhaltation"

Exaltation: To achieve the highest result possible from this life; To inherit the kingdom of God, to become a god. ( http://scriptures.lds.org/tge/exlttn )

I’ll define this before you ask…

Eternal life: The kind of life God leads, where you preside in righteousness over your creations, and grow in power and glory forever. ( http://scriptures.lds.org/tge/etrnllf )

Glad to help you with your definitions

For Secular Meanings Try http://www.dictionary.com

For Mormon Definitions of Spiritual things Try this link ( http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/contents )

>> But, how do you earn exaltation?

Exaltation and Eternal life cannot be earned, any more than gifts can be earned (if you earn it it’s a wage) Gifts like Eternal life and Exaltation can only be bestowed on the righteous, and will be received with humility if at all (If you’re not humble, you won’t get it). This is a Gift that God would give to all his children if they will but prepare themselves to receive it.

Dare Taken. Be nice to everyone on this thread, I double dog dare ya ;-) (movie The Christmas story reference)

What part of “Saved by Grace” don’t you understand?

What part of the word "after" don't you understand? Grace, according to this BoM passage, is like a rocket jet afterburner that kicks in somewhere in spiritual orbit. It doesn't kick in until the ship has done everything possible on its own to muster itself into orbit.

So, that triggers 2 thoughts:

(1) Congratulations, Spiritual Captain! Like Astronauts returning home, you get to share the glory stage with Jesus Christ 'cause, after all, it was your energy that got you to the stage before God's ever kicked in. [I know, I know, that seems to run counter to Scriptures like "those who were invited were NOT worthy" (Mt 22:8), "we are unworthy slaves" (Lk 17:10), and only he who is sick is in need of the Great Physician. We are NOT worthy to bask in the salvific glory of Jesus, but if you want to base your salvation upon the formula of 'My 100% energy will eventually trigger His' then it's your life at risk. You've been forewarned."]

(2) For the afterburner to kick in, YOU have to have done ALL [not 20%, 30% or even 90%--ALL!] you can. "We are saved by grace, AFTER ALL WE can do." I think you understand, "after." I think you understand, "all." Do you really think they'll come a point where you can say, "Yup. Spiritually, I've done all I can do?" Have you even ever heard or read ANY LDS testimony of ANYONE ever stating this?

If not, and I would surmise you haven't heard or read such a testimony, this standard is impossible to meet. And it's exactly why Jesus turned the question around when his disciples asked him, "What must WE DO to do the works God requires?" (John 6:28).

"Jesus answered, 'The work OF GOD is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'" (John 6:29).

I will not be held accountable for what God says that offends you.

>>Any missionary visit is going to try to encompass the First Vision, right?

No, My first discussion usually dealt with “This is God, here is why you should be interested in him…”

>>[Joseph Smith] concluded that (a) mankind has "apostatized" from the faith;

Are you a Catholic? If not you already believe this apostasy has happened. If so, you are used to others telling you “the church messed up long ago…“

>>(b) There was "no society or denomination that built upon the gospel

Isn’t this why all religions are started? I mean if you thought the “True” church was out there, you’d go join instead of starting one, right?

>>(c) the "world of mankind" consisted of "abominations"

Doesn’t it?

>>d) they "didn't adorn their profession of a holy walk

I am not sure exactly what this means, but I agree it’s not complementary.

>>Me: "My. How perceptive of this backwoods 12 to 15 yo to have his inner
>>thoughts confirmed by this God in a direct visitation."

Men of God are often perceptive. But actually this type of conversation was common as there was a revival spiritual movement going on in the area that spanned almost a decade from what I’ve read. If you have a collection of minister, preachers and whatever trying to tear down each other’s religion (Like some on this forum are wont to do) quite often when both sides are firing away one on the outside will decide that they are both wrong, which is why I try not make comments about anyone’s religion directly.

Your posts here especially # 462 remind me of Liberals who run around looking for things to be offended by.

Unless I am mistaken, your religion states that I am going to hell. (Hand basket optional)
I am not offended, why are you offended if mine says the same thing?
What about all the other religions out there that say we are both going to enjoy warm weather for the eternities?
Are you offended by them?
For some reason you are unreasonably offended by Mormons.
Is it because you were once one?
Why did you leave the church?
Did somebody step on your toes? (Metaphorical or physical)
Did you have a fight with your bishop?

These were rhetorical questions.
Please honestly answer this one.

Why is it that those who leave the church can’t leave it alone?

Isn’t this why all religions are started? I mean if you thought the “True” church was out there, you’d go join instead of starting one, right?

This might be true of new religions. It's not true of newly developing sects of classic faiths.

Take a look, for example, at the development of the fast-food industry in the 1950s. It's not so much that McDonalds started serving up something new. Hamburgers and fries were a part of all kinds of diners and restaurants.

But restaurants were more, "y'all come" and weren't as customer-friendly as "outreach" enterprises like McDonald's. Take a look @ the Missionary & Alliance Protestant denomination. By its very title, you can see that at least one of the new "emphasis" in its beginnings was not that the church had apostacized, but rather A.B. Simpson was calling the church back to its missionary roots. [Simpson also thought the church needed to focus more on the fact that God was a healing God].

In many new denominations through the years, it hasn't always been that churches were doing something improper; sometimes, it was that the weightiness of something was being overlooked.

I mean, how often does that even occur with parents? My parents neglected teaching me some vital things. I, in turn, have tried to incorporate those things to my children. But how many things have I neglected? Denominations are like the many children of God or the tribes of Israel. They are somewhat distinct; they each emphasize the main aspects of who God is while also each stressing some part of who God is that is less emphasized in another church body. But that is what diversity-in-unity is all about. And if you don't have a diversity-in-unity God, then no wonder your founder threw out the baby with the bathwater...he didn't want that diversity...

Book of James Chapter two verses 14 through 26:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You may disagree with what I am saying, but it is VERY biblical, which puts me back into the Why the special venom for Mormons? Mode. As for your Colorful, if intentionally inaccurate metaphors, please re read this section if you haven’t already got it, maybe you will. As I said before on this forum, Belief in my position is not required, understanding is nice. By continuing to “misunderstand” you lower anyone reading this thread’s opinion of your I.Q.

Oh, and God requires all you can do whether you admit it or not. Why is the all you can do thing a problem for you, are you afraid you will be found to be a lukewarm Christian?

>> Have you even ever heard or read ANY LDS testimony of ANYONE ever stating this?

Yes. It’s referred to as having your “Calling and Election” made sure. I know two people who have had this wonderful experience, and I am not going to go into deeper details as I consider this sacred and this is NOT the forum for things this personal.

Me: "My. How perceptive of this backwoods 12 to 15 yo to have his inner >>thoughts confirmed by this God in a direct visitation."

Men of God are often perceptive. But actually this type of conversation was common as there was a revival spiritual movement going on in the area that spanned almost a decade from what I’ve read.

Well, my point is two-fold:

(1) My unmentioned point is that many LDS writers like to portray Joseph Smith as this unenlightened backwoods bumpkin of very young age, who had neither the insight or education to construct what he did. They somehow like to portray it as "well this HAS to mean some divine imprint" in his life.

All you have to do is to read what Joseph himself said about these visions and you realize these were strong issues he was dealing with for four years during a formative time of his life...I mean, the way he frames it, these were deep thoughts he supposedly weighed between the ages of 12 & 15. So, it's not like he was this "soft coin" that was all ready to be stamped with just any revelational image. No, far from it, by his own admission, he had come to multiple theological conclusions in a "pre-visited" time of his life.

And that was my other (2) point: That he had already formed these conclusions minus any direct revelation. He had already sized up the authentic nature of people's faith lifes as non-existent [he slammed the Christians around him; whether they deserved it or not is another question]. Likewise, he had concluded the beliefs of mankind were abominations; and that there was no true gospel foundation--they had "apostatized [sic]" to use his language.

Listen, if I was to interview you and ask you, "what are the 4 or 5 most prominent religious & faith issues that are of concern to you and have been prominent in your mind these last 4 years?" ...and then if I was to say to you, "Somebody has told me that God has granted a visitation w/you in the next room." And you then proceeded into that room and you came out and told me that the main points God made were exactly the same points you made to me prior to going in the room, then I would question the reality of whether that was truly God who visited you.

God doesn't reveal Himself simply to confirm the 4-point conclusions of a 15-year-old teen-especially when it contradicts what His own Son promised ("the gates of hell will not prevail against the church."...LDS believe the prevail doctrine, and make liars out of Jesus). God has His own agenda beyond the religious wonderings of a 15 yo teen.

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.