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
>> If you believed Mormonism the same way you believe George Bush is President of
>>the United States, you would expect everything to match that.
Um, it does. Reality, it’s what you make of your perceptions, sic.
>>But you don't.
Yes I do. (I can’t believe you are arguing with me about what I believe; this would be funny if it was not so sad.
>>That's all irrelevant to you, otherwise you wouldn't think it's impossible to prove Mormonism wrong.
In your opinion, is there any unimpeachable source of information?
In my opinion the only unimpeachable source is God. Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do? I believe, that’s what I do. You are right about one thing. You will never change my beliefs by quoting some expert, you will never change my beliefs by interpreting some scripture, and you will never change my beliefs with logic because my faith is based on testimony, direct, continuing testimony. And that is something you are not involved in.
>>Which necessarily means you don't think it's true in the sense of being, you know, true.
Yeah, I know Truth.
>>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..."
“Science is the history of saying we were wrong.” – Unknown.
Science is Fallible, is the Holy Spirit? Is God?
I’ll stick with my current hand thank you.
>> If we have our own "perceptions" and no objective basis for assessing them,
>>just how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?
That is what makes it interesting! When you explain how things look to you, and I explain how things look to me, we both have the opportunity for an epiphany. The moment when we “see” from a new perspective and make that perspective ours is the moment we become more enlightened, it is the moment we move closer to reality.
Calling someone an ignoramus is anti enlightenment, the name implies that this person could not have useful perceptions, this belief reduces your opportunity for additional perspective.
“A truly wise man can learn from even a fool” – The analects of Confucius.
>>"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.
Disagreeing is fine (and fun). Calling people names “Ignoramus”, “Stupid”, “Stodgy”, “Misguided” or even "Dense” might be acceptable in some circles, these have no place in civilized debate. You may quote me on this “Name calling is not debate.”
You don’t have to agree with me, just be polite. As for the agreement, as you learn more, you will agree more and more until we see from the same perspective. (humor is also allowed in polite debate Grin).
If you are trying to “get my goat” as the saying goes, well good luck, I ran a technical support department for six years, and have loads of patience.
(R)i remember you during the 2004 rumble got acid all over me!:)
I do get intense when looking for the truth but I don't know of anyone before referring to me as an "acid personality". Most everyone who knows me says I have a very gentle personality.
(R)You never showed that gentle personality towards the LDS!
I love the truth so I love the Catholic Church. Part of loving the truth is hating falsehood. If you find that insulting, so be it.
(R)I admired many thing s about the Catholic Church!
(R)Your Church can't think we are so bad when the millions of dollards of LDS charity donation we distribute in concert with the Catholics!
I grew up in a community of entertainers. Being a somewhat gullible child, on a number of occasions I was taken in before they let me in on the joke.
The stories they tell are no less believable than what I saw in the BOM.
Most of these people don't even have high school educations- it is a talent for making up and telling the story that counts- if anything the intellectualism of education seems to get in the way.
I can't do what they do, but having seen what they do I know that they could (and some of the more rascally ones would) take up the challenge your professor made.
You may not be aware of this but I have no doubt of the LDS population has a great percentage of University grads or have skilled occupation that can compete with any!
You leave me to say by your stereo posting again that you also seems pompous...
>>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.
Um, these are writings he wrote later, after the translated the BOM, so he might have learned something but you wouldn’t give that any credence huh? Maybe he read the scriptures so much that he just started thinking that way, nah. Same author? Nah, Was Joseph Smith even aware they are there? Did he ever talk about it? (There is no evidence … http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=465 ) But hey, “Truth” is only irrelevant to ignorant Mormon’s.
As my father told me, “figures don’t lie, but liars do figure, so always go over the figures your self.” My dad is a wise man; I’ve caught a lot of “mistakes” that way.
BTW, your blog comes up blank for me, no funning, I’d check eBlogger from another computer, or try using ( http://www.anonymizer.com/consumer/products/anonymous_surfing/affilindex.html?id=AFC-QW6867330054 ) to go look at it, and see if it comes up right (I use it to check stuff I’ve posted, I have found stuff I messed up that way). I’ll just take your word that you that you knew what Chiasms are.
So, How exactly do you account for Joseph smith who never mentioned it to anyone as far as the records we have say, know about them?
We can set here and argue up and down, left and right, but what it boils down to is faith. Either you have a faith building experience reading the BOM, or you don’t. I did, others say they didn’t.
“In questioning Deity, any response is significant” – The Analects of Confucius
I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone, followed by what everyone knows is wrong, including the most vehement Mormon apologists. But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading for why an accurate ancient record describes something totally different from what we know was there.
Yes I do. (I can’t believe you are arguing with me about what I believe; this would be funny if it was not so sad.
If you believe your religion cannot be proven wrong by anything at all, there are some things that follow necessarily from that. You don't get a free pass out of people pointing it out by being inconsistent.
Having received a witness directly from God that the Book of Mormon is true, what do you expect me to do?
What did Paul tell the Corinthians? That he had recieved a "witness" (which actually only amounted to a subjective feeling), or that there were actual witnesses, most of them still alive at the time of his writing? But see, Paul really did believe in the Resurrection, and since it was still recent, he expected to find eyewitnesses. And he did. His own experience came last, even though he had experienced actual miracles like being blinded and having his sight restored.
you will never change my beliefs with logic
Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
Calling someone an ignoramus is anti enlightenment, the name implies that this person could not have useful perceptions, this belief reduces your opportunity for additional perspective.
No, it simply means you don't know something you should have known. If you had refrained from lecturing us about something when a little searching on the internet showed you didn't know what you were talking about, nobody would have accused you of being an ignoramus. But you tried luring people from the truth of God by falsehoods. Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
Why "nah"? It doesn't burn your bosom?
>>I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone
It was obvious, nad I am glad you liked it.
>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…
Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.
>>totally different from what we know was there.
So, how do you know what was there, were you there when Joseph dug up the plates, perhaps you witnessed the First vision and are just now coming forward, Wow you are older than you sound. You have conjecture stated here as fact like you continued statements as to what I think, what I feel or don’t feel this is pathetic, if this is the best you can do, get some help, get Color Country over here to help you at least he was logical, and polite.
>>If you believe your religion cannot be proven wrong by anything at all, there are some
>>things that follow necessarily from that.
And those are… Apparently free passes! (Can I go see MI3 again?)
“Incomplete sentences show incomplete thinking” – Sherlock Holmes I believe.
>>You don't get a free pass out of people pointing it out by being inconsistent.
Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.
>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
First or Second book? Chapter?
Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible!
I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?
>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s
I believe in Christ. (http://www.lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=134&searchsubseqstart=%20&searchseqend=134&searchsubseqend=ZZZ ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!
>>No, it simply means you don't know something you should have known. If you had
>>refrained from lecturing us about something when a little searching on the internet
>>showed you didn't know what you were talking about, nobody would have accused
>>you of being an ignoramus. But you tried luring people from the truth of God by
>>falsehoods. Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
“I don’t know things I’m supposed to know, but I know things I’m not supposed to know” -- John Doe TV show
Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)
>> when a little searching on the internet
Links please…
>> you tried luring people from the truth of God
I have never lured, taught those willing to learn? Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lure ) As when I was introduced to my father in law, “I assure you my intentions are entirely honorable.”
>> Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
My my you have a small vocabulary, how about mistaken, unfortunate, lost, misled, gullible, innocent dupe, or even wrong. I’ve got more, and I’ve got a thesaurus, don’t make me open it! /Humor
Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
>>Why "nah"? It doesn't burn your bosom?
Maybe I should have included a humor or Sarcasm tag.
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?
Why would I want to rearrange deck chairs anyway, the customers will just move them where they want them, so what's the point?
(Grin)
nad while apparently in Word's dictionary should be and...
Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
Not diminished enough... : )
>>Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
Sorry, but I call them as I see them, at least you never questioned whether I could walk and chew gum at the same time (I’ve been practicing, and I almost have it!) /Humor
Yes on this latest forum you are careful but Flying Circus you were brutal to me in 2004 and I did not forget it.
I tried to be cordial in our dialogue but when you implied drinking and boozing etc.
I fine that offensive for it never happen!
Being offensive is spilling acid on another Flying Circus
...and to say the LDS are of a lower caliber when many have been and are heads of educational departments of many leading non LDS University that remark of your seems being pompous!
BTW
I did not call you pompous I said seems pompous!
Now personally I could be called limited ed as far as the world standards, I don't think my Heavely Father would say that for it is him that my understanding comes from!
Copy and past is great isn't it!:)
Sorry that was not the reason for my tagline...
It was about privacy is not an option in todays world!
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.