people talk have fun while it....
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
>> I say that the passage clearly speaks of the One and Only God ... and the One and Only Saviour.
GEAT! The Spirit, and my intellect say differently, but it’s fun discussing our different perceptions of reality and the scriptures.
This “I say…” that you wind up in when you only have the bible is precisely why we need more scripture. (Thanks for illustrating). That’s why I can and have come up with many scriptures supporting my position.
I say you are wrong in your interpretations. I also believe you to be a sincere if deluded individual. It is interesting that those on the other side of this discussion will not afford us the same latitude, instead we are vilified, misrepresented, and painted as black and vile deceivers, who trick people into our church by half truths, “Lying for the Lord” and many other contemptible accusations.
I say you didn’t make much of an argument with your post. You may say differently, nice collection of scriptures, too bad you didn’t use them better.
I say you didn’t make much of an argument with your post. You may say differently, nice collection of scriptures, too bad you didn’t use them better.
I say that you are resorting to the tactics of someone who has nothing further of value to bring to the debating table.
Of course, ... such behaviour is not at all uncharacteristic of the Mormons posting to this site.
You all have variety of such (ineffectual) tactics that you use ... when you can no longer proceed with honest debate.
I say that you are resorting to the tactics of someone who has nothing further of value to bring to the debating table.
Of course, ... such behaviour is not at all uncharacteristic of the Mormons posting to this site.
You all have variety of such (ineffectual) tactics that you use ... when you can no longer proceed with honest debate. ~ Quester
In all the years I have seen you post "Quester", to the LDS such as Grig James one of the longest dialogue, even Logogphile etc!
You never gave an acknowledgement to any thing that that stared you in the face!
You are not truly a "Quester" as in "Quest!" that is a misnomer because a seekers want to know the truth not deny it!
***
Matt. 11:
25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Matt. 16:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Luke 10:
21 ¶ In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
John 6:
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
***
John 6:
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (a servant of God like Moses or Enoch, Joseph is purified [elevated] for a brief time is able to see the Father)
***
John 17:
1 THESE words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Eph. 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Quester I can't help but marvel...
Jesus could bear witness to you "Quester" of His Father in Heaven, and you would tell Jesus he is wrong for the Nicene Creed says..
>>I say that you are resorting to the tactics of someone who has nothing further
>>of value to bring to the debating table.
I knew you were going to say that!
>>Of course, ... such behaviour is not at all uncharacteristic of the Mormons posting to this site.
Spell check it’s your friend
>>You all have variety of such (ineffectual) tactics that you use ...
Every one has favorite tactics and they tend to vary by person and also by mood. What was the point of your almost sentence again?
>>when you can no longer proceed with honest debate.
Please define honest and dishonest debate. I did not know that we were debating yet, you simply posted an “I say” section about your opinions. My philosophy professor taught me “whenever it is a matter of opinion, I am right”. So, let’s discuss debate, first, how long have I been on this thread, and how long have you been part of this debate.
I have been on this thread for about 700 Posts, probably a quarter of these posts are mine, topics have ranged from The council at nice, hyppolytus, Modern revelation, the book of Mormon’s origin, the nature of God, Early reformation efforts by the apostles and more.
Please, go read all my posts on this thread, so you know what has already been said (since you are jumping in “in the middle” as it were). Now about debate, there is an accepted form for debate typically it is more than just a collection of reference material which leaves the reader to their own interpretation (Not a good thing in debate).
You posted a collection of scriptures which if tied together might have made an argument worth listening to, but since you always started with “I say” which is at best a bad debating tactic, at worst an attempt to assert truth “because I say so”. Either way, it’s a semi public forum, want to try again?
This time instead of saying “I say…” try forming a hypothesis, support it with scripture and summarize drawing on more scripture. In your summary, try to look at things from my perspective and preempt any scriptures I might bring up to support my interpretation, by using them in your original statement you may make it more difficult for me to frame a cogent reply. I typically use word, write my answers (Spell Check is automatic), read the response out loud, then cut and paste it into the reply box.
Framing a proper, researched, coherent argument takes time, if you don’t have it, get another hobby FR is not for the rushed, they end up embarrassing themselves.
Personally, I would rather let a reply wait a couple of days before responding so I can respond properly, instead of trying to get a response out in a 5 minute window of time
This lesson on basic debate was brought to you by the letters A and H which together make the sound Ah! Like someone who just got a clue.
Sorry, I left you off of my ping to 725
I see your new book "101 Clever Comebacks" is serving you well.
Have you ever heard of Chiasms? Be honest now, did you know about them before I brought it up?
Incidentally, there are Mormons who've noticed that chiasms appear in Smith's other writings. The particular author I linked to doesn't seem to get that if Smith wrote like that, it doesn't count for ancient authorship.
So, now your not only smarter than me, you are a psychic too, Miss Cleo, is that you? I believe what I believe; you only have my words and my actions to see what that is.
If you believed Mormonism the same way you believe George Bush is President of the United States, you would expect everything to match that. But you don't. That's all irrelevant to you, otherwise you wouldn't think it's impossible to prove Mormonism wrong. Which necessarily means you don't think it's true in the sense of being, you know, true.
I told him and I will tell you, “True science is merely another form of Theology, since we are studying what God left for us to study.”
Unless it conflicts with a burning bosom, in which case we stop studying and start saying "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, I know the church is true..."
Mormonism does meet up with reality, the question is, what is reality? I have my perceptions, you have yours, somewhere in between is reality. One of us may be closer than the other, but reality probably escapes us both. Did you want to have a philosophical discussion, or not? Oh, I see, I am too dim to have any perceptions, well, since I am barely sentient, why are you bothering to even talk to me?
If we have our own "perceptions" and no objective basis for assessing them, just how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?
"Oh, I see," anyone who disagrees with you simply denies that you have perceptions at all and personally insults your sentience. And since personal insults are bad, we should all do the polite thing and agree with everything you say.
In all the years I have seen you post "Quester", to the LDS such as Grig James one of the longest dialogue, even Logogphile etc!
You never gave an acknowledgement to any thing that that stared you in the face!
You are not truly a "Quester" as in "Quest!" that is a misnomer because a seekers want to know the truth not deny it!
Quester I can't help but marvel...
Jesus could bear witness to you "Quester" of His Father in Heaven, and you would tell Jesus he is wrong for the Nicene Creed says ...
A few of your statements here, Restornu ... are an example of what I am talking about.
Here ... you go beyond ... judging my arguments ... to judging me, ... something that Christians are encouraged not to do.Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.And it is but one example of what Mormons are, more often than not, left doing when the evidence doesn't support their contentions (as is often the case).
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I, actually, understand (to some extent) your plight.
Mormonism is built upon a virtual dearth of non-evidence.You hold sacred a document (the BOM) ... for which you have no original documents ... which only one person ever claimed to have read.I understand that defending the above ... would be quite difficult.
The BOM references historical events and circumstances (Jews in the early Americas) ... for which there is no supporting evidence.
You leaders have changed their positions on key points of church doctrine at many times in your history.
You declare as God-approved, ... behaviours which the Jewish and Christians faiths condemned long ago (polygamy).
Etc. ... etc. ... etc.
So ... it doesn't surprise me when ...... a poster starts to judge me ... rather than my argument,Actually, it would surprise me ... that any of you could raise cogent arguments for the claims of Mormonism ... for that task is well-nigh impossible.
... or when a poster hits the abuse button ... rather than address the argument,
... or when a poster begins to post non-relevant pictures,
... or when a poster simply declares an argument wrong without bringing forth any evidence,
... or a poster just fades away ... from the discussion.
Believe me when I say ... I feel your pain.
But ... also believe me ... when I say that I, and those you meet here who argue for the cause of christianity ... are, largely ... doing just that.
We are really only anti-Mormon in the sense that, ... we believe that you should know the truth.
And ... so long as you are willing to dialogue with us, ... we will continue to present to you the truths of historic christianity ... and the fallacies of Mormonism.
God Bless ...
Seems if I were a prophet I would write that way when receivng scripture from the same Author!
Please define honest and dishonest debate. I did not know that we were debating yet, you simply posted an “I say” section about your opinions. My philosophy professor taught me “whenever it is a matter of opinion, I am right”. So, let’s discuss debate, first, how long have I been on this thread, and how long have you been part of this debate.
I have been on this thread for about 700 Posts, probably a quarter of these posts are mine, topics have ranged from The council at nice, hyppolytus, Modern revelation, the book of Mormon’s origin, the nature of God, Early reformation efforts by the apostles and more.
Please, go read all my posts on this thread, so you know what has already been said (since you are jumping in “in the middle” as it were).
I’ve read the thread … including your comments. If you check, you’ll find that I started to post at around post # 250. I was tracking the thread a good bit before that.
Now about debate, there is an accepted form for debate typically it is more than just a collection of reference material which leaves the reader to their own interpretation (Not a good thing in debate).
You posted a collection of scriptures which if tied together might have made an argument worth listening to, but since you always started with “I say” which is at best a bad debating tactic, at worst an attempt to assert truth “because I say so”.
You’ve misunderstood.
I’m not saying … "Because I say so."
I’m saying … this is my say (i.e. my opinion) … in response to your specific request in post # 707 …I say this is debatable, because we are indeed debating it. What say you ?So ... it seems that my response was quite appropriate … and that we are debating.
Of course, I posted scriptural support for my say (i.e. opinion) as well.
This lesson on basic debate was brought to you by the letters A and H which together make the sound Ah! Like someone who just got a clue.
Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980
Excuse me an observation of a fact is now a Judgement and
And it is but one example of what Mormons are, more often than not, left doing when the evidence doesn't support their contentions (as is often the case).
I, actually, understand (to some extent) your plight.
Mormonism is built upon a virtual dearth of non-evidence.
Quester,I gave you srcipture and everyone of us gave you scripture to the subject the point is you never acknowledge to what is testified by the word of God!
...and what do you give Quester? - redirection and obfuscations!
It matters not because those lurkers who are not caught up in this Nicene of mindset are aware of this cat and mouce play!
"You merely expect it to give you certain emotions."
Brilliant!
Best line of this thread.
You fight the good fight. Keep it up. There are many of us that are used to the circular logic and obsfucation techniques utilized by the opposition.
Do not get sidetracked. This debate is about whether or not the Book of Mormon is God-written. It is not about style of debate, erroneous interpretation of scripture, or hate-filled anti-mormons. It is about the Book of Mormon and if Joseph Smith could have written it without being a prophet of God. I think all the evidence points to YES. An illiterate young man in his twenties can (and many others HAVE) written pure fictional nonsense. In fact it happens all the time. Read this post for one such example of pure fictional nonsense.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1631505/posts
Cute picture, can someone tell me what the caption means????
I remeber one of you old FR taglines you use to post a while back...
Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug.
That's a cute tagline...I don't recall using it, but it's cute.
I knew you posted that article for entertainment....I'm just saying people write about make-believe cultures, demons, spirits, and peoples all the time. Sometimes they even use scripture to make it sound more legitimate. Often they will use rythyms, words, names and places that replicate those we find in the Bible. It happens all the time. What makes the Book of Mormon unique is the marketing of a "new religion."
I do when I first encounter you it sort of stuck out I am sure I could if I cared fine it on FR your tagline.
It's like everything else on this thread, who's word will you take? I'm telling you now, I've never used it. You are mistaken.
I would have used it if I'd thought of it. It's cute and it's appropriate at times.
What does it have to do with this current conversation?
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.