The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[ed2276]

QUOTE=ed2276,Jul 3 2006, 04:48 PM]

Whatever truths it might contain are derivative of the Judeo-Christian tradition, IMO, and so have already been spoken to in the context of scripture.

Cool, then let's just cut out three of the four Gospels in the Bible , since the last three of them are derivative of the first. This would make toting around my triple combination alot more pleasant.

And which three would those be?

Does it matter? If you see redundancy in the BoM , just cut out all reference to things also addressed in any one of the Gospels. And since there are 4 Gospels saying pretty much the same thin , it really doesn't matter which ones you lop off. Let's keep the one which shares its name with the most boys born and named likewise. What is the most popular boys name...Matthew , Mark , Luke or John?

And which of them are not constitutive of the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Oh they all are. And so is the BoM. Your objection to the usefulness of the BoM was its redundancy in things already revealed in the Bible. If that's your objection then three of the four Gospels can also be tossed because they are also redundant.

Ancient authorship of the canonical gospels--undisputed--vs. BoM's modern/ancient authorship--highly disputed by all who care outside the LDS camp

You need to do a bit more study. While ancient authorship of the canonical gospels is a give , the identity of the authors is in dispute. Beyond that , the content of the Gospels is in dispute. So the "authorship" of the gospels may not be nearly as ancient as you might think.

Let's not get this turned around

Why not? You make a point for dismissing the BoM because the validity of its authorship is in question and even if there is some truth in it its not needed because its already addressed in the Bible. Therefore , if its not really scriptural because JS made it up , dismiss it ; and if there is some scriptural truth , dismiss it because its redundant.

Okay , apply the same critical review to the Bible. It is a fact that the Bible has been altered , some portions added and some deleted. We need to look at just who did those alterations and why. If it was anyone other than the original authors , the Bible is suspect , having been written according to the fancies of fallable men , with agendas. If it is infallable , and there is the same scriptural truth throughout , particularly in the gospels , then three of the four are redundant and we can do without them.

No one disputes the ancient authorship of the canonical gospels. Lots of folks question the ancient authorship of BoM

I suggest you take care with absolutes such as "no one " , "never " and "always". There are in fact many people who not only question the ancient authorship of the BoM , but there are also some who question the authorship of the canonical gospels , as well as other canonical texts.

And, BTW, I assume you know there is more than one dependence theory circulating in NT studies. I favor Matthew as the primary gospel myself, possibly written first in Hebrew. Not Mark. You?

I favor the one based on the number of boys born and named with the same name.

And what are those eternal truths that failed to find a place in the Judeo-Christian canon but were brought to light in the BoM? That is the question for me.

Best

see above in my other post.

[cksalmon]

What truths are found in the BoM that cannot be found penned much earlier and in more convincing fashion than the BoM?

Curious. And best to you.

CKS

infants don't need baptism ; what happens to us between our death and resurrection ; who the "other sheep" were that Christ spoke of ; that Christ visited the Americas after His death ; that God speaks to many peoples and delivers His word to them and they write them as scripture (an important point to ponder , as this intimates that not only is the Bible , BoM , D&C and PoGP scripture , but that other scripture beyond them exists , or can exist) ; that God grants unto men according to the desires of their hearts ; that God gives us weakness that we may humble ourselves before Him ; that faith is not knowledge and that in order for faith to become knowledge we must nourish it (Alma 32) ; that God requires that a man shall have but one wife , unless He commands otherwise to "raise up seed" unto Him ; that there is an opposition in all things and without that basic principle God Himself could not exist ; why it is so improtant for a people to keep a written record of God's commandments and their own customs and traditions; the words of Zenos and Zenock ; the premortal Holy Ghost has the form of a man ; Christ is the Father in three ways 1) Father of creation , 2) Father of rebirth throught the resurrection and 3 ) Father because God grants Him authority and so Christ is both Son and Father , one Eternal God.....and many others that I won't take the time to list.

infants don't need baptism ;

And this is taught where in the NT?

what happens to us between our death and resurrection ;

And a Judeo-Christian version of this is not taught in the NT? It is. "It is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment."

who the "other sheep" were that Christ spoke of ;

The other sheep were non-Jewish Gentiles, according to the context of the passage--not ancient Israelite descendants in the ancient Americas. Contextually, this is a dead-end.

that Christ visited the Americas after His death ;

A peculiar LDS belief based only on BoM. Not supported by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although, I suppose it counts as an eternal truth not found in Judeo-Christian scripture. Unfortunately, it has little merit in terms of historical investigation.

that God speaks to many peoples and delivers His word to them and they write them as scripture (an important point to ponder , as this intimates that not only is the Bible , BoM , D&C and PoGP scripture , but that other scripture beyond them exists , or can exist) ;

This simply assumes an open canon--an idea foreign to the Christian tradition.

that God requires that a man shall have but one wife , unless He commands otherwise to "raise up seed" unto Him ; that there is an opposition in all things and without that basic principle God Himself could not exist ;

Without your caveat, this is simply the basic Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage. Your saying that God approves of polygamy if it produces a desirable end. You're right. This is foreign to the Bible.

There is not a basic opposition in all things. That's Manicheaism. It's a heresy. There is one arbiter and one pole around which human behavior gathers and is judged: that is, God himself. There are not equal, binary forces in the universe. That's paganism, not Christianity.

that God gives us weakness that we may humble ourselves before Him ;

Biblical.

Christ is the Father in three ways 1) Father of creation , 2) Father of rebirth throught the resurrection and 3 ) Father because God grants Him authority and so Christ is both Son and Father , one Eternal God.....and many others that I won't take the time to list.

Perhaps you should have. Because this is almost trinitarian.

You believe, apparently, very close to what I do, except that you distinguish the father and the son in ways that are antithetical to your post here.

So, essentially, your position argues for an absolute dualism, not taught in scripture, and a visit by Christ to the Americas, not substantiated in historical records other than the BoM.

Again, I'd ask, are there eternal truths taught in BoM that transcend the Bible? The dualism thing is not going to cut it, since its antibiblical, and the visit to the Americas will only cut it if you assume that BoM is true, a priori, without reference to historical materials.

Which are conspicuously lacking in solid evidence that such was the case.

Best.

CKS

[onelowerlight]

Tom:

I've read and reread, etc, etc, etc, both the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings.

No real similarities exist.

You're right, the LotR was a bad example. It's much too engrossing.

Yet another sad case of a member who was lost because they couldn't get through Ether...

I kinda feel dumb saying this in an on-line forum, but I've probably read the BoM about 20 times.

And yet you weren't engrossed in it...

[Tom]

And yet you weren't engrossed in it...

Not especially. Growing up LDS, reading with the family every morning before seminary, reading in seminary, serving a mission, etc. gives plenty of "opportunity" to become familiar with the BoM.

[questioner]

Here is someone who has taken the challenge!

http://www.bookofzelph.com/start.html

[cksalmon]

Given my post above, I'm wondering how LDS would defend this challenge as a legitimate one.

CKS

[onelowerlight]

Here's how I see it. When Hugh B. Brown and others issued the Book of Mormon challenge, they did it because so many of the critics of the Book of Mormon are armchair critics - they speak in large generalizations and characterize the book in ways that aren't fair. These armchair criticisms of the Book of Mormon are insulting to sincere, meaningful dialogue, and a pain in the neck to deal with because they don't bring up specific claims against the book - though they do serve the propaganda aims of the die hard anti's.

So, in order to counter this, the Book of Mormon challenge was created. The purpose was this: to get the armchair critics to stand up and take a good look at this book that they were trying to criticize. Not only the critics, either, but also (and I would say, mostly) to get the members themselves to stop taking the Book of Mormon for granted and look at where it came from. A challenge is a very good way of getting somebody's attention, and once the attention is gained, the specific parts of the challenge make the person think a little bit, and compare themselves with Joseph Smith. This comparison helps the person to realize that the Book of Mormon ISN'T something that can be so easily explained - and shouldn't be so summarily ignored.

If there's one thing I'd like to see the critics do in response to the Book of Mormon challenge, it's not to try and follow the Book of Mormon challenge literally and line by line - especially since some versions of the challenge I've seen have involved starting worldwide religions, commissioning 50,000 missionaries, and calling down angels from the sky to the witnesses, something I doubt the critics could do (I do believe that these things are possible - just that they're beyond the capabilities of the critics to make happen ) If there's one thing I'd like to see the critics do, it's this: to stop making all of these armchair generalizations of the book, and bring up some specific, discussable issues! I've seen some issues like that on this board, but I've also seen a lot of the insultingly condescending armchair talking - especially on this thread! Generalizations such as "the BoM is boring" or "if the church could really receive revelation, where is the revelation today" or "I can't imagine how the BoM could be translated from a single set of gold plates" just show to me that the critics haven't gotten the message.

All the more reason to never take the criticisms seriously.

[onelowerlight]

Nana, here's the thing. I respect you, where you're coming from, the fact that you've struggled with issues about the church, and all of that. However, my impression is that this board isn't just a place to unload all your baggage, but to bring up questions, get answers, discuss issues, hear all sides of a story, and learn some new things. The biggest pet peeve I have about members of this board is when they bring up an issue, but don't want to discuss it. In other words, they bring up an issue just to express their frustration, but they don't plan on discussing it any further than saying "this is something I've struggled with." To me, it's like you're not contributing to the discussion, you're becoming a leech and just trying to unload, to take away rather than to give something constructive. I hope that Selek's answer was acceptable to you, because in my opinion he did a superb job of responding to your issue and satisfactorily answering your question without giving a "pat answer."

[The Dude]

Given my post above, I'm wondering how LDS would defend this challenge as a legitimate one.

CKS

Defend it? The "BoM challenge" is an attack, cksalmon. It's one of the most powerful and effective tools in the BoM-believer's arsenal. It spares no critic, which is why they all flee the battlefield. That's the point of this thread.

(Your post above is well taken, by me at least.)

[The Dude]

If there's one thing I'd like to see the critics do, it's this: to stop making all of these armchair generalizations of the book, and bring up some specific, discussable issues!

And what would be the point of bringing up real issues?

Why just the other day I pointed out how heavily the BoM derives from the New Testament. That was a specific, discussible issue. And in the space of one post you resorted to "you just have to have faith." Frankly, real issues are thread stoppers.

All the more reason to never take the criticisms seriously.

Never say never.

[ed2276]

[onelowerlight]

Given my post above, I'm wondering how LDS would defend this challenge as a legitimate one.

CKS

Defend it? The "BoM challenge" is an attack, cksalmon. It's one of the most powerful and effective tools in the BoM-believer's arsenal. It spares no critic, which is why they all flee the battlefield. That's the point of this thread.

(Your post above is well taken, by me at least.)

If it is an attack, at least it's designed so that it'll get people thinking a little bit deeper than they otherwise would.

Personally, I think that The Book of Mormon challenge was written for the members more than the critics.

[Jerubaal]

If you have not been worthy of the blessings promised in your blessing, you will not, absolutely will not receive them. Have you been worthy of them? From what I have gathered on these boards about your attitude towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am somewhat doubtful

..i received my pb at twelve..i was the prefect mormon back then, and still i could tell that my pb had absolutely nothing to do with me....

but anyway...that is the prefect excuse/answer from mormons to mormons...no testimony? not prayed enough, no blessings? not worthy enough....its a joke

its just my view as an insider, without quoting the tanners or any other famous "anti", of the other side of the coin.

If you say so, then by all means.

EDIT: On a further note, what in the world constitutes an insider?

[The Dude]

The "BoM challenge" is an attack, cksalmon.  It's one of the most powerful and effective tools in the BoM-believer's arsenal.  It spares no critic, which is why they all flee the battlefield.  That's the point of this thread. 

If it is an attack, at least it's designed so that it'll get people thinking a little bit deeper than they otherwise would.

I was being thoroughly sarcastic. ()

Personally, I think that The Book of Mormon challenge was written for the members more than the critics.

I agree. The critics see it as an unbalanced and contrived joke and move right on past to real issues. LDS members find that it confirms their sensibilities, so they bring it up again and again.

[Jerubaal]

who the "other sheep" were that Christ spoke of ;

The other sheep were non-Jewish Gentiles, according to the context of the passage--not ancient Israelite descendants in the ancient Americas. Contextually, this is a dead-end.

Christ said he was not sent to minister to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

[mig22]

an insider means someone from the inside...a born in church person that has no problems in telling the other side of mormonism, and that somehow happens to not see ONLY the good stuff.....

[ed2276]

who the "other sheep" were that Christ spoke of ;

The other sheep were non-Jewish Gentiles, according to the context of the passage--not ancient Israelite descendants in the ancient Americas. Contextually, this is a dead-end.

Christ said he was not sent to minister to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:24

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

yep.

[Jerubaal]

an insider means someone from the inside...a born in church person that has no problems in telling the other side of mormonism, and that somehow happens to not see ONLY the good stuff.....

Sounds... "Grant Palmerish".

So "Grant Palmerish", in fact, that I'm going to quote John A. Widtsoe:

The self-called liberal is one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy to which he belongs. He is an unbeliever. He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. He is forever entangling his unbelief with his membership. He wants the protection of the organization and, therefore, admits frankly that he rejects the fundamental beliefs of the cause and seeks truth elsewhere. It is a species of cowardice. In a Church the liberal refuses to accept the doctrine of the Church or the way of life it enjoins upon its members. It is undeserved compliments to designate by the noble word of liberal. They are apostates from a cause, engaged in building their own cause under false convictions, rudderless mariners, victims of every passing wave. Such men whatever they may call themselves are dangerous to human happiness. Certainly they are not entitled to be called liberals within the organization in which they are members. Their chief pastime is to sow the seeds of anarchy in the hearts of others. It is folly to speak of a liberal religion if that religion claims to and rests upon unchanging truth.

It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.

In this church, you are either a member or you are not. If you do not believe in it anymore, then leave it rather than deceive yourself and your fellows. Do you claim "membership in an organization but [do] not believe in its basic concepts"?

Are you ready to make the choice between belief and unbelief?

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:16

Which is it? Hot or cold? Are you ready to give up your entire life just because a few doubts cropped up? Or will you at least be willing to listen to the other side, and see that there is a completely different side of the story? You seem to have already made your mind up. I hope you will lay aside your stubborness long enough to listen.

EDIT: fixed quotes and tags

[onelowerlight]

And what would be the point of bringing up real issues?

Meaningful dialogue.

Why just the other day I pointed out how heavily the BoM derives from the New Testament. That was a specific, discussible issue. And in the space of one post you resorted to "you just have to have faith." Frankly, real issues are thread stoppers.

I didn't say that ALL of the critics fail to bring up specific claims and issues. There are many critics who have done this on this board, and I give them credit. They have won my respect, even if I disagree with them.

As to my "resorting" to "you just ahve to have faith," all of the posts in which I've said that have been meaningful contributions from myself. To my knowledge, I never tried to cut off discussion by saying this. Instead, I've been trying to contribute a meaningful answer. If you believe that faith is valid, you'll see the meaningfulness. If not, you'll misinterpret it as something I'm "resorting" to in order to cut the debating short, which has not been the case.

Real issues are the reason why this board is such a great place to come and get answers.

QUOTE 

All the more reason to never take the criticisms seriously.

Never say never.

Fair enough. But I will say that respect has to be earned, and that many critics of the church have failed to earn my respect.

I agree. The critics see it as an unbalanced and contrived joke and move right on past to real issues. LDS members find that it confirms their sensibilities, so they bring it up again and again.

It does confirm LDS sensibilities. However, I wouldn't say that ALL critics move on right past it to real issues. Many critics go right back to the good old armchair, rehashing dead issues at best.

[mig22]

In this church, you are either a member or you are not. If you do not believe in it anymore, then leave it rather than deceive yourself and your fellows. Do you claim "membership in an organization but [do] not believe in its basic concepts"?

Are you ready to make the choice between belief and unbelief?

QUOTE

[The Dude]

As to my "resorting" to "you just ahve to have faith," all of the posts in which I've said that have been meaningful contributions from myself.  To my knowledge, I never tried to cut off discussion by saying this.  Instead, I've been trying to contribute a meaningful answer.  If you believe that faith is valid, you'll see the meaningfulness.  If not, you'll misinterpret it as something I'm "resorting" to in order to cut the debating short, which has not been the case.

It may seem that way to you, but in the specific thread I referred to it definitely sounded like a way to stop the discussion. I can't think of any way that "you just have to have faith" contributes to a meaningful discussion. It is a blatant special plea.

Real issues are the reason why this board is such a great place to come and get answers.

And you contribute a lot of interesting issues, so don't be mad that I'm giving you a hard time. It's just that special pleading is not a meaningful contribution. Ya' know?

[Jerubaal]

In this church, you are either a member or you are not. If you do not believe in it anymore, then leave it rather than deceive yourself and your fellows. Do you claim "membership in an organization but [do] not believe in its basic concepts"?

Are you ready to make the choice between belief and unbelief?

QUOTE 

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:16

Which is it? Hot or cold? Are you ready to give up your entire life just because a few doubts cropped up? Or will you at least be willing to listen to the other side, and see that there is a completely different side of the story? You seem to have already made your mind up. I hope you will lay aside your stubborness long enough to listen.

as i said in another thread, im part of the group of members that are members because we have no other choice.....if we choose what we really and honestly believe, we must face some concequences (most of them family oriented)...im not deceiving anybody, my family is well aware of my doubts, im just fed up with being called "apostate" or "influenced by satan" just for asking questions....i had the talk with my family...my father was pretty clear "you will destroy everything we have worked on for our eternal family".....like if god was actually like that...

do you even understand the kind of pain i feel when im told those things by the family i love?..and because i love them no matter what church they follow, i choose to be a member till (hopefully) someday, they open their minds to the POSIBILITY that god is better than that....or that not everything in life is black or white, not everybody that is not part of the church is against it,.....a south american person, having really hard issues with his family, because they choose to follow what some other men living in utah tell them is right or wrong...i dont think im the only one seeing things like this.

ive listened to every explanation, my bishop, the missionaries, family, farms, fair, jeff lindsay, has to my doubts and they dont seem to go to the shelf of doubts...

and im not throwing away my whole life because some doubts cropped up...i believe it wont be much diferent, apart from being peacefully married with a non member, and having my family blessing to it, because im happy, its all it should matter to them, wether their son is happy or not...all the nice words, the faith promoting stories, the testimony days, the so called "spirit" being present..you sum all that and it doesnt even come close to how i feel when im with my not member soon to be wife....if your answer is that satan can make the things of the world apear like hapiness, dont waste your time, ive already heard that one and its a joke

I never suggested you would be miserable if you left the church. I am simply saying you ought to make up your mind.

Can one find happiness outside of the church? Yes.

Can one find a fullness of happiness, that will last into the eternities, outside of the church? No.

I wish you the best with what choice you take, I really do, but you ought to make a stand for what you feel is right, or, as you feel towards the church, what isn't right.

[auteur55]

Does the book of Zelph count towards the BOM challenge?

[onelowerlight]

As to my "resorting" to "you just ahve to have faith," all of the posts in which I've said that have been meaningful contributions from myself.

[The Dude]

As to my "resorting" to "you just ahve to have faith," all of the posts in which I've said that have been meaningful contributions from myself.