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
The Great grandson of St John the Apostle (Hippolytus) wrote books refuting some of the heresies he saw entering the church, His works were mostly lost due to the Heresies winning!
1) Hippolytus was not related to John. ~ A.J.Armitage wrote
***
To begin with, Hippolytus was a "great-grandson" of St. John the Apostle. That is, we can trace his line of apostolic succession directly to John. He was commissioned by St. Irenaeus who was commissioned by Polycarp who was commissioned by (or at least knew) St. John himself. So there can be no question about his legitimacy as a bishop.
http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/08/daily-08-13-2002.shtml
His answer was and always had been "NO."
He said “YES” to me, well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, but do we have to be disagreeable?
So, You don’t think the Church is True, You have nothing better to do than to “Warn” others off. OK, I understand, since I see this from another angle, I hope you can understand that I am not going to appreciate one who would “Warn” others to stay away from the Truth, no matter how ineffective they are.
Is there not something useful you could do instead?
>>I had refused to listen because all these supposed "men of God" stood between me and my Father God.
That would be a problem, but the church encourages personal revelation from God (that is how peole join after all).
By your posts here you do not understand (or are purposefully twisting) the Gospel. I have had many friends, and some family, who have changed religions sometimes from one protestant faith to another. They, not being mormons, all just moved on, and started doing things with their new church. Some times when a member leaves the LDS church, they feel “compelled” to do something about “That Church”. That is why it is said, they can leave the church, but they just can’t leave the church alone. I have never seen this with any other church. (Anecdotal evidence is like that.)
>>Your Church fails the test, it fails the Word of God, it fails as a "social experiment in mind control.
Said like someone who truly has lost all touch with objectivity.
>>"Millions of ex-mormons, inactive-mormons, born-again Christians like me can't be wrong!
Sadly my “Millions” comment was a joke, yours appears to actually be what you believe.
It is the Height of arrogance to lecture on a faith you do not believe in, an arrogance I and many other Christians find incompatible with the humility a true Christian is supposed to have.
“When they kick the church, they kick it up the stairs, because the lord God so orders it” - Brigham Young.
I have found that when an Anti Mormons gets as shrill and unreasonable as this thread has been, those who are looking will ask members what is going on, and soon, we have converts (they pray, feel the spirit’s confirmation and join). Keep it up; you only drive those who are ready to us.
Good point. It is mind programming plain and simple. If you tell yourself something over, and over, and over again, eventually you may come to believe it.
Thank the Lord, that my mind and emotions could not be fooled. He led me to green pastures, He walks beside me, He restores me. The Lord is my shepherd, not the Godhead, not the Prophet. He sent me the Bible so I could know Him.
I have found that when an Anti Mormons gets as shrill and unreasonable as this thread has been, those who are looking will ask members what is going on, and soon, we have converts (they pray, feel the spirit’s confirmation and join). Keep it up; you only drive those who are ready to us.
It is so true every time we get negative press folks come to see for themselves and say you are nothing what others are saying and many join the Church!
Hey that was my line to Bonfire...
>>Is it not true many of your questions as well as others are not couched in double entendre?
Still waiting for an answered Please?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1622778/posts?page=619#619
Oh really, name them. Give us their Freep names, there is no danger in exposing them since everyone here is incognito. Or is this another example of "lying for the lord?"
You can have them freep-mail me if they aren't proud enough to come out publically.
Fortunately it doesn't refute a thing ... because it was never a part of the scriptures.
It was just another writing in the collection of writings which were generated during the days of the early church. Some of these writings were inspired by God ... and some of them weren't.
Why wasn’t it included in the Bible if all the authors of the time agreed as you said? That was my point, you missed it. As you will no doubt, miss this plainly stated refutation of the Compilation of the Bible.
All of the writers of scripture agree ... that's (8) writers in the NT alone.
Why would Judas (the betrayer) ... agree with the other disciples ?
God did (the selection of the NT writings) ... working through the church.
A church that Paul said was already falling away from the teachings ...
Paul never said that the Church was falling away from Christ's teachings.
Paul said that the Church was fighting heresy that was attempting to infiltrate the Church ... from the outside.
Understand something ... your logic is off.
You're making all this fuss about who chose the NT scriptures ... all written within less than 100 years after Christ's ministry ... in a God-led process involving the original Apostles, the early Fathers, hundreds of scholars, etc.
And ... at the same time ... you accept the single testimony of one young man ... of questionable character ... and who admits to being confused.
According to their own statements, Mormons don't doubt the validity of the Bible.
And why shouldn't they ... if they can accept the testimony of one Joseph Smith for the BOM, ... they should readily accept the overwhelmingly more solid evidence for the Bible.
The Spirit simply hasn't led us to embrace the Book of Mormon.
Well, it led me to. Why not try again? You might learn something, what have you got to lose anyway? No answer, no harm, answer you learned some thing important.
I pray to God nearly everyday. I continue to pray to Him concerning the Mormon claim, among other things. When He gives me the nod, ... I'll let you know.
No, I have God’s word, but you won’t accept my testimony that I have received a witness from him. Your refusal to accept testimony does not mean it did not happen nor does it mean I am deceived. Satan does not testify of Christ, nor does he teach men to call on Christ’s name.
Joseph Smith would not be the first to attempt to use Christ's name ... for his own purposes.
Millions of Mormons can’t be wrong. (Grin)
Why not ? ... millions of Moslems are.
Performing a real quick search through the links on your page, the word trinity (which should return trinity, Trinitarian,, etc) does not appear in any of his books
A quick reading reveals how he refutes the Gaia, God is only a spirit, four and five gods, that God was created by the earth, that God was created by angels (Loved that one), that Christ was fathered by Joseph…
I liked this piece:
“And this heretic also alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion came upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.”
And this one:
“CHAP. XXVIII.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRUTH.
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised (under the title), Concerning the Substance of the Universe. I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.”
And This:
“You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know thyself;" i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. “
Now for the really good stuff:
“these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God”
So, man becomes a God (not the God, a God) This section is from the Author’s concluding address. I only had the time to do a quick search, and read book X I’ll have to read the rest later, thanks for the link! (bookmarked!)
restornu, you'll love this!
On post #571 ColorCountry spent a lot of time telling me God is one not two or three personages, care to straighten CC out for me ?
I think that you need to take a look at post 571 again. I don't see where CC mentions anything about personages.
In fact ... she mostly just quotes scripture.
thank you I will enjoy reading soon!
It seems the Mormon claim that there were important or "plain and precious" parts of the Bible that were removed or left out.
Has there ever been one shred of evidence that the writings in existence (that were left out of the New Testament) contained any of the Mormon dogma?
Any evidence that early Christians practiced.
1. Marriage for eternity.
2. Polygamy
3. 10% tithing
4. abstinence from alcohol, hot beverages, grains or "meat out of season."
5. A single "head" of the Church like the current Prophet and President of the LDS Church Gordon B. Hinckley. I understand there is an understanding that though art Peter, the rock, and on this rock I shall build my Church, etc., but we clearly see that the apostles were not subject to his control, or prophesy.
6. Attendence to a temple in order to perform rituals or ordinances outside the traditional Jewish ones
7. Being baptised in order to become a "member" in a denomination. (the Corintians were never baptised into the Corithian Church, they were baptised into the body of Christ.)
Those are just some of the questions that come to mind.
>>>>Keep it up; you only drive those who are ready to us.
>>Oh really, name them. Give us their Freep names, there is no danger in exposing them
>>since everyone here is incognito. Or is this another example of "lying for the lord?"
I had a friend in High school who came to me to ask questions after seeing "The God Makers" (I saw it, no stars).
She is not a freeper, She joined as soon as she was 18. Then while I was on my mission I got a letter from an acquaintance in High school (I had a hard time even remembering who he was). He had run into some anti’s, he knew me, and asked my mom how to write me, I told him how to get a hold of the missionaries after answering his questions, he was a member when I came back.
I could come up with more, but I’ve proven my point.
I am not aware of any on this forum, but the day is young, and the last thing I would do, is give you names and emails if I had them.
I have never “Lied for the Lord”, he would not approve even if I were willing to.
This is a strange accusation when you (It was you, Right?) have told me you believed me when I said “I would keep my word even to the very Devil himself.” Since you are a member (who left but didn’t leave) who is breaking covenants to the lord, I understand why you might think Lying for the Lord is a good idea. Ask him sometime, OK?
A little off topic, but since you mentioned it...
Since Satan tempted Eve with the following words: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And she succumbed to that temptation, believing the fruit was "also desirable for gaining wisdom."
Therefore, would you consider Eve's desire to be "[her] own God" as evidence of her sinful nature?
If not, why not? If so, then from whom did Eve inherit her sinful nature?
The first man and woman had a free will nature and a behavioral problem. They did not have a nature problem.
You bring up an interesting point here
how can one lie about having a testamony so many times for so many years than deny they ever had a testamony!
How can one speak with such knowledge which in some cases only comes from having a personal revelation to bear a testamony and then in the same breath deny that the Holy Spirit ever witness to them!
Wonder how many Fast and Testimony Sundays did one stand before the saints and beared witness to personal revelation or blessings they have received in their lives and now deny it!
Rom. 1:
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Col. 2:
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I thought you were insinuating that I had personally driven someone your way. I never asked you for their real name or e-mail address. If they are truly converted to your way of thinking, then I would be no threat. I only ask that individuals be given adequate information in order to make an informed decision.
Google the phrase "lying for the lord," and see how many of the responses point to the Mormons...at least 15 of the top 20 making that over 75% of those posts pointing toward Mormonism. That is amazing when only 2% of the population is Mormon.
Granted they are all ex-mormon or anti-mormon sites, but you would expect the other 98% of the population to have 98% of those who have become disenchanted and angry at their former religions. You would expect some of those people would accuse their former religions of lying to them. Wouldn't you?
Are there any experts in the Greek on FreeRepublic?
The term “Godhead” is found three times in the King James Version of the Bible (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9). In Acts 17:29 the Greek term is theion, signifying “divinity” or “the Deity” (with the definite article) - a perfect way to express the concept of the true God as opposed to the conflicting gods of Greek paganism. The kindred word in Romans 1:20 is theiotes, which refers to the Creator’s “Divine nature.” In Colossians 2:9 the Greek theotes carries the meaning of “Deity” or “Divinity.” This text affirms that the fullness of the Divine nature is manifest in the person of Jesus Christ.
I have never studied Greek, perhaps there are others on FR that have. I don't see that the words "theion," "theiotes," "theotes" would describe the Godhead of which Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2)." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Godhead Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead
Godhead (Christianity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In Christianity, the Godhead is a term denoting deity or divinity. It is a unity comprised of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit.
Though often used interchangeably with the concept of Trinity, the word Godhead is itself a word that simply means "godhood"[1] and, thus, it is erroneous to use it as synonymous with the English word "trinity."
In those English translations of the Bible that use "Godhead," such as the King James Bible, there are only three passages of scripture where it is used, and each time it translates a different Greek word: Acts 17:29 (θεῖον theion, an adjective meaning "divinity, deity"[2]); Romans 1:20 (θειότης theiotēs, a noun meaning "divinity, divine nature"[3]); and Colossians 2:9 (θεότητος theotētos, a noun meaning "deity"[4]).
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.