Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Take the Book of Mormon Challenge!

My professor at BYU showed me this. I thought it had a great point. There is no way I actually can complete it haha :lol

Enjoy

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. For details, see my page on Book of Mormon Evidences. (For general background, see my Introduction to the Book of Mormon and my Introduction to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or to really dig, read the Book of Mormon online at the richest Web site of all, www.lds.org.)

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. Though it is several decades old, it still offers a challenge worth pondering. (Recently discovered evidences for Book of Mormon authenticity should be consulted for some real excitement.) The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 8, Ch. 11, pp. 221-2:

"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."
 
johnnylingoman said:
My professor at BYU showed me this. I thought it had a great point. There is no way I actually can complete it haha :lol

Enjoy

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. For details, see my page on Book of Mormon Evidences. (For general background, see my Introduction to the Book of Mormon and my Introduction to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or to really dig, read the Book of Mormon online at the richest Web site of all, http://www.lds.org.)

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. Though it is several decades old, it still offers a challenge worth pondering. (Recently discovered evidences for Book of Mormon authenticity should be consulted for some real excitement.) The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 8, Ch. 11, pp. 221-2:

"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."
Sorry, but this is not a legitimate challenge. This is like trying to suggest that since George Lucas came up w/ Star Wars, then anyone could have come up with it. Not everyone has the same level of imagination and story-telling abilities. Joseph Smith was known for his story-telling and imagination. All that proves is that he had a better imagination than others...that's not a standard test for truth.
 
No to mention it plagiarizes from the KJV and actually does have contradictions. Sounds like the prof is just trying to convince himself that he really is being intellectually honest with his beliefs.
 
Free said:
No to mention it plagiarizes from the KJV and actually does have contradictions. Sounds like the prof is just trying to convince himself that he really is being intellectually honest with his beliefs.
That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry.
 
You have proved your point, whatever had John Smith write that book was of supernatural origin. That however merely strengthens my long held assertion that it was not the inspiration of God but the deception of that other little trickster. The Devil may be evil but he is smart, he knows how to weave a fantastic story believable enough that if people want to, they will see it as truth.
 
toddm said:
Free said:
No to mention it plagiarizes from the KJV and actually does have contradictions. Sounds like the prof is just trying to convince himself that he really is being intellectually honest with his beliefs.
That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry.

I must point out that with this statement proves you have never actually read the Book of Mormon. And without reading it, you really cannot have an opinion on it. People who claim to have an opinion about the Book of Mormon without reading it are merely stating someone else's opinion they have heard.
 
kevkelsar said:
toddm said:
Free said:
No to mention it plagiarizes from the KJV and actually does have contradictions. Sounds like the prof is just trying to convince himself that he really is being intellectually honest with his beliefs.
That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry.

I must point out that with this statement proves you have never actually read the Book of Mormon. And without reading it, you really cannot have an opinion on it. People who claim to have an opinion about the Book of Mormon without reading it are merely stating someone else's opinion they have heard.
This is really pretty irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that just because something is a good story doesn't make it inspired by God. Star Wars wasn't inspired by God.
 
kevkelsar said:
toddm said:
Free said:
No to mention it plagiarizes from the KJV and actually does have contradictions. Sounds like the prof is just trying to convince himself that he really is being intellectually honest with his beliefs.
That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry.

I must point out that with this statement proves you have never actually read the Book of Mormon. And without reading it, you really cannot have an opinion on it. People who claim to have an opinion about the Book of Mormon without reading it are merely stating someone else's opinion they have heard.
You really shouldn't be so presumptuous. I have a Book of Mormon and I have read it.
 
Free, my quote was in reference to toddm's statement of "That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry." I apologize for including your statement in my quote. To say most of it is plagiarized from the KJV means he hasn't actually read it. Or, if he has, he didn't READ it, he just skimmed it without even trying to actually read it. It consists of around 600 pages, and "most" is not plagiarized from the KJV. To make that statement would be similar to saying that the New Testament plagiarizes the Old Testament.
 
Free, my quote was in reference to toddm's statement of "That's true! He didn't even really need to have that good of an imagination because most of it is plegarized from KJV and Free Masonry." To say most of it is plagiarized from the KJV means he hasn't actually read it. Or, if he has, he didn't READ it, he just skimmed it without even trying to actually read it. It consists of around 600 pages, and "most" is not plagiarized from the KJV. To make that statement would be similar to saying that the New Testament plagiarizes the Old Testament.
Fair enough. Let's forget the use of 'most.' Do you agree that the Book of Mormon does plagiarize from the KJV?
 
Free said:
Fair enough. Let's forget the use of 'most.' Do you agree that the Book of Mormon does plagiarize from the KJV?

I wouldn't call it plagiarism. I see it much the way I see verses from Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament. The people in the Americas (where the Book of Mormon was originally written) did have copes of the Old Testament writings up through around Lamentations (as explained in the Book of Mormon).

Other passages in the Book of Mormon that have the same wording as those found in books after Lamentations and in the New Testament are simply proof to me that God would teach the same thing on both continents that didn't have communication with one another.
 
kevkelsar said:
Free said:
Fair enough. Let's forget the use of 'most.' Do you agree that the Book of Mormon does plagiarize from the KJV?

I wouldn't call it plagiarism. I see it much the way I see verses from Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament. The people in the Americas (where the Book of Mormon was originally written) did have copes of the Old Testament writings up through around Lamentations (as explained in the Book of Mormon).

Other passages in the Book of Mormon that have the same wording as those found in books after Lamentations and in the New Testament are simply proof to me that God would teach the same thing on both continents that didn't have communication with one another.
So, just because there are 2 books w/ similar wording, then that's PROOF that God spoke to 2 different continents?
 
The question comes in the harmony (or lack of harmony) between the two books.

For a good writer, that "challenge" would not be that much of a challenge at all.
 
If the book of Mormon was so correct and inspired why have there been over 3,900 changes to it? And no, not all of those 3,900 were corrections in grammar and punctuation.

Why is there absolutely -zero- manuscripts available for review whereas the Holy Bible today still has over 800 verifiable manuscripts to reference? By comparison Plato's Republic has 5 known manuscripts. Book of Mormon? None.
 
toddm said:
So, just because there are 2 books w/ similar wording, then that's PROOF that God spoke to 2 different continents?

Obviously not, just simply making the statement that God would speak and teach the same things to both continents. Whether God did is something only God would know. :) I happen to know that He did teach those on the American continent.

Menno said:
The question comes in the harmony (or lack of harmony) between the two books.

For a good writer, that "challenge" would not be that much of a challenge at all.

Interesting...I've been reading/studying from both the Book of Mormon and the Bible for over ten years and fail to see the lack of harmony between the two.

RND said:
If the book of Mormon was so correct and inspired why have there been over 3,900 changes to it? And no, not all of those 3,900 were corrections in grammar and punctuation.

Why is there absolutely -zero- manuscripts available for review whereas the Holy Bible today still has over 800 verifiable manuscripts to reference? By comparison Plato's Republic has 5 known manuscripts. Book of Mormon? None.

The VAST majority of those changes have been grammar and punctuation. Any wording changes were made to simply clarify the meaning. And to criticize the Book of Mormon for this and NOT the Bible (which has how many different translations with wording changes "clarifying" passages?) shows a complete blind bias against the Book of Mormon.

The original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon are available to see at the LDS Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, Utah. And there is only ONE original manuscript because there is only ONE version.
 
kevkelsar said:
The VAST majority of those changes have been grammar and punctuation.
As I said, not all.

Any wording changes were made to simply clarify the meaning.
Why would meaning need to be clarified if it was inspired?

And to criticize the Book of Mormon for this and NOT the Bible (which has how many different translations with wording changes "clarifying" passages?) shows a complete blind bias against the Book of Mormon.
No it doesn't and such a statement could only come from someone that misses the point that there is actually very little difference between the oldest manuscripts and the Bible of today.

The original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon are available to see at the LDS Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, Utah.
There are no original manuscripts because it is aledged that the angel Moroni took the plates back to heaven with him.

And there is only ONE original manuscript because there is only ONE version.
And that's in heaven with Moroni.
 
They have not actually added to the Book of Mormon itself, but Joseph Smith DID add the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine of Covenants - with all their "rules" that were not in the original Book of Mormon.

RND is correct in that the Bible we have today is not any different than the earliest manuscripts, Dead Sea Scrolls.

Unfortunately, debating a Mormon by using the Bible is useless as they do not see how God, the creator of the universe, could possibly ensure His Word was unchanged throughout the years. Sad, really.
 
Jon-Marc said:
The written, inspired word of God consists of just the Old and New Testaments. There is NO third testament.

Do you think God doesn't speak to all people? Do you think that God only spoke to the Jews? Why would God create the whole earth and people it with all of these people and then only speak to just one very small segment of his creation? You believe that God is omnipresent but you think he speaks to only the smallest portion of his creation? I thought the whole earth and everything in it was his creation? Why would God show such favoritism? I thought he was not a respecter of persons? Do the scriptures lie?

Marvin
 
Back
Top