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
"There are also other Fathers in the World, but you don’t call them Dad"
???
I know you believe that there is one God that has authority over YOU. Is that saying that other gods have authority over someone else?
My memory recalls that Mormons believe that your/our God only rules over THIS area of the galaxy and that there probably are other gods who rule elsewhere. Maybe I'm phrasing this wrong but that's the best I can do!
FM thanks again!:)
Do you believe in two or three or many "gods," or in one God who is one divine nature in three divine persons?
And if you answer that you believe in two or three or many "gods," how many of those "gods" are really exalted men who started out as humans and achieved "godhood"?
What would you call Jesus?
So using your post we could interpret the following scriptures this way:
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead"divinity, deity" is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
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"divinity, divine nature"; so that they are without excuse:
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead "deity" bodily.
I don't see that this would support the idea of three personages whatsoever.
Your making a mountain out of a mole hill Godhead is just another word for Trinity or 3 as the LDS perfer!
You see Godhead you think Trinity in one amorphous mass!
LDS Sees the Godhead 3 seperate personages being one mind!
Nope, I'm just saying the Bible does not support your contention that there is a "Godhead" in the way Mormons interpret it.
No mountain, no molehill, no amorphous mass.
Yes, and did you get a chance to see how he misquoted it? It did not say man would become a God, it said man would become God. No definite article, until DelphiUser neatly added it. It's talking about theosis, the perfect union between God and the blessed saints in heaven.
There are no other Gods besides YVWH, the God of Israel. Jesus is not "a God" or "another God", he is God, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are not "gods" or "other gods," they're just God.
Isaiah 43 and 44 make it crystal clear that there is only one God, and you can't say that "plain and precious parts" were removed from Isaiah, because we have the complete text of Isaiah from the Dead Sea scrolls, and it says the same thing -- and the LDS church admits this!
If you learn a little philosophy, you'll discover that the definition of "divinity" precludes the idea of more than one god just as much as it precludes the idea of a man turning into a god. Google on St. Thomas Aquinas proof of the existence of God, and the concept of necessary and contingent existence.
ping to #638.
You're being paged
What Dephi posted was not from LDS Church, it was just an interesting read nothing more!
theotes simply means the quality of being God; theion and theiotes are like our words "divine" and "divinity," which mean God-like, and can in themselves refer either to something pertaining to God Himself (cf. English "divine mercy"), or less than but akin to God (cf. English "divine angel").
In any case, nothing like a divine counsel of separate deities, nor (in itself) Trinity. (To be clear, the Trinity is the teaching of the Bible; but that isn't the word that expresses it.)
Excuse me your the one that denied the Godhead claim the Bible (and I showed you Godhead is in the Bible)and made a big deal with that you threw out your out your version of they trinty!
Godhead appeares in the NT and is NOT in the OT
BTW
Amorphous Lacking definite form; shapeless
so what form or shape does you concept of have?
To be more accurate, I should have said "the sinful nature of post-fallen man". I agree that Adam and Eve did not have a sinful nature but had volition. They had the capacity to be obedient...
So why did Adam and Eve choose to eat the fruit?? I do believe this was due to their desire to be their own God.
Thank you for your interpretation.
It looks like, in this case, Wikepedia got it right.
Thanks, I knew somebody would know somebody. : )
here's a treat for you!:)
"Beyond Personality: The New Men." Hear the only surviving footage of C.S. Lewis's broadcast talks. This is the last episode in Beyond Personality, the third series. It was broadcast on BBC radio on 21st March 1944. We apologise for the sound quality.The transcripts of all three series were published as Mere Christianity.
The New Men (Realmedia, 14m 05s)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/religions/christianity/cslewis/beyond_personality.ra
An introduction to The Great Divorce "Blake wrote The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If I've written of their divorce, this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius, nor even because I feel at all sure that I knew what he meant..." C.S. Lewis introduces his book The Great Divorce in a clip first broadcast on 9th May 1948.
The Great Divorce (Realmedia, 1m 58s)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/religions/christianity/cslewis/the_great_divorce.ram
...sort of stretching it aren't you it was just interesting observation talked about in the Ancient of Days
Geez!
Then how would you explain the passages which state that one is "baptized into Christ" (Rom 6:30, Gal 3:27)
Can one be saved while not in Christ?
Suppose a FReeper pledges money during the quarterly pledge-a-thon...If [faith] never produces works, it is dead.
The pledging doesn't make the Freeper a supporter - the giving does. The belief doesn't make a seeker a disciple - the obedience does. In both cases, the first step is an interest in becoming - not a becoming.
Faith without works is dead, demonic, useless according to James. Faith without works is a straw-man that James tears to shreds.
James 2:23 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.
Here, James plainly agrees that faith is the only prerequisite for justification.
Let's quote a bit more of that passage to let James make his own point. He states that "faith only" is not the only prerequisite for justification.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
But let's be sure and be on the same page regarding what James means by "faith only". He's talking about a claim that some have made that obedience is not necessary for salvation, only faith. That's a warped definition of faith. The faith God wants is an obedient faith. James wants his readers to know that you can talk about your faith all day long, but if you are not obeying Christ, you're only fooling yourself about your faith and your salvation.
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.