Skip to comments.

The Book of Mormon Challenge

Posted on 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



TOPICS:

History

Religion & Culture

KEYWORDS:

biglove

cult

fakes

forgeries

josephsmithisafraud

ldschurch

mormon

moronchurch

nontrinitarians

universalists

To: DelphiUser; Colofornian

It is clear Cofian is going to continue to try to inject meaning that does not fit!



To: restornu

It is all about Jesus Christ if you were to attend our Sacarment meeting you would have no doubt! Which Jesus? You mean the LDS one who claims he was a mere spirit brother of Lucipher?



To: restornu

Common sense we were spirits before we join with our body here on earth! And "common sense" tells the Buddhists & Hindus & the New Agers they've all been here before. So are you trying to claim that "common sense" makes reincarnation true?



by 443 posted onby Colofornian (Go ahead sing it out (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young): "We have all been here before...We have all.")

To: Colofornian; DelphiUser

you know in your heart that is not true what you are saying with each post.



It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who continues to be willful and distorts meaning!



To: Colofornian

Sorry to hear you have left reality...





To: restornu; Colofornian

Can you show where Colofornian is in error? You DO believe Jesus and Lucifer were brothers so what's the problem?



To: restornu

I moved from Presbyterian to the fulness of the Gosple! I'm going to assume you had family members who were Presbyterian. [might be a false assumption] What was wrong w/the gospel they embraced? Are you saying what they believe(d) was an "abomination" to God [what JoeSmith said]? Are you saying that your one-time leaders and their leaders were "corrupt"--as Joseph said? As for "fulness of the gospel," your "fullness of the everlasting gospel"--the Book of Mormon, doesn't even say you can baptize dead folks; it fails to mention anything about men becoming gods; or that God was once a man; or that he has a fleshly body; or any of number of things requisite for exaltation [temple related things for example; or how a woman must be married to a Mormon in good standing to receive exaltation]. In fact, speaking of exaltation, it doesn't even mention 3 degrees of glory. So what's a Mormon gospel with no exaltation? What's a Mormon gospel w/no second chance (baptizing dead folks)? What's a Mormon gospel w/no outlined destination (3 degrees of glory)? In fact, there is NO multiplicity of Gods in the Book of Mormon. Our "Z" buddy in the book of Alma (Alma 11:22-29) clearly lays it out when asked a direct question: "Nope, there's no more than 1 God." Period. End of Story. There's not 3 gods in a godhood for this world and umpteenth thousand others for umpteenth other worlds. One God. Isaiah chtprs 43-48 [and it was near this area where Joseph copied copiously from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon] clearly lays it out over & over again: One God.



To: restornu

It is the Divinity that is being begotten so Jesus is part Man, part divine! Those who have historically believed in Jesus have not regarded him as "half man, half God." If Jesus were half man, half God, he would be neither man nor God but a composite of both, a hybrid creature somewhere between the two. If Jesus was a mere man prior to becoming a god, then he could not have said in John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." Keep in mind that the true Elohim of Isaiah 42:8 said, "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols..." He then went on to add: "You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior." Is.43:10-11 There you have it: May the Holy Spirit illuminate all in this: There were no gods formed prior to the true Elohim; none after. In fact, Isaiah says, there are NO saviors other than Elohim (which means Jesus is one with the true Elohim in more ways than just purpose and truth. But look closely, the God of Isaiah is even more specific here: "my servant whom I have chosen [Jesus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53], so that you may know and believe me and UNDERSTAND THAT I AM HE." Don't we understand here? This is not Mormon vs. non-Mormon stuff. This is, "Do we believe Isaiah or not?" Do I/you believe Isaiah when he quotes God saying there's only one God, period, and that He shares His glory with no other god...yet Jesus claimed to share His glory before the world began? Do I/you believe Isaiah when he quotes God saying there's only one Savior, period. (Not two). "Apart from me there is no savior." [He doesn't say, "Apart from us--the godhood--there is no savior."] Do I/you believe Isaiah when he quotes God saying "I am he"--the servant He has chosen? Why can a wife's identity be locked in step with her husband's (same name, oneness beyond purpose and truth, same residence, same bed, same so much more) but somehow God cannot be so united with other divine personalities? How many lords do you have? Elohim in Isaiah says, "I am the Lord, and there is no other." (Is 45:18). Eph 4:5 says there is "one Lord." The passages citing "Jesus as Lord" are too numerous to list here. Don't you see? For the historic Judeo-Christian God, there is one God...one Lord...just as I am soul/spirit & body doesn't make me multiple substances. Am I a diversity- within-unity being. How can I be such a complex being, but you negate God--more infinitely complex--from having such a nature? We see diversity within unity all around us. Multiple species of dogs; yet all dogs. Multiple species of cats, yet one cat. Multiple types of trees; yet all trees. 2 people, yet one in wedlock...and each nuclear family is a trinity (father, mother, and child). Diverse individuals within the family, yet one family.



To: bonfire

Can you show where Colofornian is in error? You DO believe Jesus and Lucifer were brothers so what's the problem? Gladly Lucifer was more OUR brother, than Jesus, even though Jesus is also OUR brother, for we all have the same Heavenly Father, but remember Jesus was the ONLY ONE who was BEGOTTEN of the Heavenly Father! NOT you, NOT I, and of course NOT Lucifer none of us was begotten of the Heavenly Father, as was Jesus!



To: restornu

Lots of weird events were happening in the "burnt over district" in Western NY in the early 19th century.



by 450 posted onby eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))

To: eleni121

"burnt over district"



The area still had a frontier quality during the early canal boom, making professional and established clergy scarce, lending the piety of the area many of the self-taught qualities that proved susceptible to folk religion. Besides producing many mainline Protestant converts, especially in nonconformist sects, the area spawned a number of innovative religious movements, all founded by lay persons, during the early 19th century. These include:



*Mormonism (whose main branch is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Joseph Smith, Jr. lived in the area and claimed to have been led by the angel Moroni to golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon near Palmyra, New York.

*The Millerites. William Miller was a farmer who lived in Low Hampton, New York, who preached that the literal Second Coming would occur "about the year 1843." Millerism became extremely popular in western New York State. Other groups, including Sabbatarian Adventists and Advent Christians, remained active in the region during the late 1840s and 1850s.

*The Fox sisters of Hydesville, New York conducted the first table-rapping séances in the area, leading to the American movement of Spiritualism (centered in Lily Dale) that taught communication with the dead.

*The Shakers were very active in the area, with several of their communal farms located there.

*The Oneida Society was a large sectarian group that subsequently disbanded. It was known for its unique interpretation of group marriage which had mates chosen by committee and offspring of the community raised in common.

*Finney himself preached at many revivals in the area. His preaching style was an early precursor of Pentecostalism which emphasized a living, practical faith marked by emphasis of the Holy Spirit over formal theology.



In addition to religious activity, the Burned-Over District was famous for social radicalism. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the early feminist, came from Seneca Falls, New York, and conducted the Seneca Falls Convention devoted to women's suffrage there.





by 451 posted onby colorcountry (He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.)

To: restornu; bonfire

NOT you, NOT I, and of course NOT Lucifer none of us was begotten of the Heavenly Father, as was Jesus! Since historic Christianity has no spirit children in heaven doctrine, do you want to explain the exact relationship between Heavenly Father and spirit children in heaven? Is he begetting spirit children in heaven with a mother god or not? Aren't you basically saying the only difference in "begetting" is that in heaven, he has a wife-god begetting spirit children [Eliza Snow's hymn sung in LDS stakes] and on earth, LDS essentially believe [without using this language] that Heavenly Father temporarily made Mary into his personal concubine and had a special embodied child? How can a God of flesh have a child through Mary? The Holy Spirit coming upon Mary as a spiritual being is a supernatural miracle; but a fleshly [super]nature coming upon Mary in a "literal paternity" [LDS general authorities' words] sounds rather crass and I would say is provocative to the true God of heaven.



To: restornu

earyly AD that the scriptures were alredy being altered even during the time of Paul as he stated You wrote the above on Post #251, and nobody called you on this. Why is this even an issue to you or LDS? I mean, #1 here you have Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version" where he supposedly corrected whatever mistranslations there were. (How or why we don't know...he really didn't know much Hebrew or Greek...how many translators do you know who know only one language?). Anyway, why these vague references to "altered" verses when you could make a list of the differences between the "IV" and other versions of the Bible and there you have it...a specific distinctive list. #2 If the KJV was such an error-filled bastion of ungodly and abominable thought, as JoeSmith and other LDS continue to portray to this very hour, why does Salt Lake City publish it? Send it out for free to folks who see LDS KJV commercials? You know, if I possessed any error-filled book, I would not recommend it, let alone market it and advertise it, and base my entire life upon it.



To: Colofornian

>>Glad you quoted John 17:3. It shows eternal life is in a relationship,

>>not just a time period (future tense).



So, youre saying it truly is who you know /Humor



The only way to have a relationship with god is to be like him (Im not going to bother quoting scriptures about tolerance for sin, you could quote them just as fast as I could).



>> Did you know eternal life is now because it's based on a faith relationship of

>>who you know and not based upon performance?



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



by 454 posted onby DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: Colofornian

please stop posting me you don't discuss you blantly lie and distort and I am not going to have dialogue with those who are willful!



Stop posting me!



To: restornu

please stop posting me you don't discuss you blantly lie and distort and I am not going to have dialogue with those who are willful! That's what I thought. You don't truly want to dialogue. You just want to be able to snipe about other folks where you question their sanity ("left reality.") I'll gladly stop posting to you personally (Please return the favor) or to your personal comments. However, if you post articles, I will respond to such article content.



To: Colofornian

>>>>Are you trying to Shake my faith? (Not even Close).

>>>> If you were trying to shake anyones faith, what a despicable thing to attempt.



>>Okay, so if we try to enlighten someone that the tulips in their backyard are not

>>praiseworthy as gods, or that cows are not sacred because they were

>>great-grandfather Joe, then "shaking" such a faith is "despicable," eh?



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



BTW The Hindu would tell you there is a god in the tulip, just as there is a god in you, or your ball point pen. They would be serious, and you would look like a buffoon for telling them they did not know what they were talking about. Then theres the cows



>>Better tell certain folks where white shirts & ties to stop going door to door.

>>Might shake someone's faith their visiting (to hear the gospel was lost, in

>>need of restoration).



As a former missionary for the Church (where I taught Buddhists, and Hindus) I never denigrated anyones religion on purpose.



>>You can't even be consistent w/the tenets of what you say you believe.



Pulezze! The stated reason for the questions, and the questions were not compatible.



I want to help you.. When will you agree that you are wrong? When did you stop beating your wife? Is it you or your interpretation that is wrong? Why are you resisting the truth? Why cant you be consistent? /Sarcasm



by 457 posted onby DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: Colofornian; bonfire

You don't truly want to dialogue.



That is not true I responded to Bonfire



He asked his question he did not poison the water along the way he just asked his question!



I can not talk to some one who completely tangles and confuses a question!



If you were sincere about what you have a complaint with, you would state clearly your complaint and not all your willful insinuations!



To: Colofornian; restornu

>>>>The Mormon God is a god of accountability, the perception I have of the protestant

>>>>God is that all you have to do is say I believe and go on sinning, because God

>>>>will take care of it. and you have no responsibility to do anything.



>>Is this in contradistinction to the Mormon god who apparently says,

>>"You take care of your sin. It's totally on your shoulders"???



You sir have a gift for misunderstanding what has been clearly stated. (Almost as if it was on purpose).



From post #366:



You almost had it. There is no Pulling your selves up ( http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/23#23 ) we are Saved by grace after all we can do. We must do all in our power, and then Christ makes up the difference, whether large or small.



What part of Saved by Grace dont you understand?



by 459 posted onby DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: DelphiUser; Colofornian

What part of Saved by Grace dont you understand Mormons believe they are saved by Grace (after all they can do.) But, how do you earn exaltation? Please define "saved." Please define "exhaltation" I dare ya ; )



by 460 posted onby colorcountry (He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.)

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.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson