Enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

[Navidad]

About fifteen minutes ago I was wrapping up the time I wanted to spend learning about Brian D. Stubbs resulting from another thread. I became a bit disinterested when he made several claims in his writing to be an "authority" on this or that. Methinks that kind of evaluation is best left to others.

In looking at one of his books on Amazon, I came across a review that got me thinking. The review made the point that Stubb's work adds to the "enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." I pondered on that statement for a while, and decided I would bring that question here. It has most likely been asked in a hundred ways or more, but my question is a bit specific. What does the Book of Mormon (just the text, not the title page, which I believe has been amended several times) claim for itself? Not, "What does each of you claim for it" or "What do I claim for it?" What does it claim for itself within its own text? Not what the Doctrine and Covenants claims for it. . . . but what does the book itself claim for itself, and in which text do we find those claims?

I have read the BOM on a number of occasions. I cannot remember (not saying it doesn't exist) where it makes a claim for itself as a collection of texts joined as one. Just to be fair (no pun intended), I could ask the same question related to the Bible. I am unaware of it making claims for itself as a volume in its entirety. This question seeks to neither challenge nor confirm The Book of Mormon. Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks. 

[MrShorty]

Here's what I see in the BoM text itself:

1) After the Lehites left Jerusalem, they kept records. After they split into Nephites and Lamanites after Lehi died, the Nephites continued to keep records. Not much is said about Lamanite records, if they existed.

2) After 1000 years, when we get to Mormon's day, there is a library of records that Mormon becomes "librarian" over. Mormon, claiming divine inspiration, takes it upon himself to abridge what he considers a vast library of writings into a single work that he calls the Book of Mormon. Mormon does this with only few direct references to the text of the library of writings that he is referencing, and gives no indication how he chooses what to include and what not to include nor how he evaluates his sources (other than to claim divine inspiration for his choices). He includes in this abridgement a collection of writings called the Small Plates of Nephi. Moroni adds his abridgement of the Book of Ether and a few of his own writings.

3) Based mostly on Moroni's promise and a few other passages, Moroni, at least, and perhaps Mormon, too, expected a measure of skepticism from his/their future readers. They encourage the reader to accept the text as "true," perhaps without further explaining what it means for the record to be "true."

That seems to me to be a summary of what the text claims for itself -- A divinely inspired summary of Nephite history based on the library of records that Mormon had access to in about 400 CE.

We in the 21st century generally acknowledge that ancient people didn't do history the same way that we do, and Mormon does not reveal much about his methodology. Mormon does say that his overall purpose is to testify of Christ, but does not elaborate on how that purpose influenced choices he made while summarizing the history. This could be important because we can look at other texts and see how an author's purposes influence the history they write. I am far from an expert, but I have had some quick introductions to the conflicts and comparisons between the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles in the Old Testament, and how the differences reflect differences in the authors' basic theologies and purposes for writing these histories. In the case of the BoM, we have no alternative histories to compare to and we don't have access to any of Mormon's source documents.

Does that seem accurate?

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Here's what I see in the BoM text itself:

1) After the Lehites left Jerusalem, they kept records. After they split into Nephites and Lamanites after Lehi died, the Nephites continued to keep records. Not much is said about Lamanite records, if they existed.

2) After 1000 years, when we get to Mormon's day, there is a library of records that Mormon becomes "librarian" over. Mormon, claiming divine inspiration, takes it upon himself to abridge what he considers a vast library of writings into a single work that he calls the Book of Mormon. Mormon does this with only few direct references to the text of the library of writings that he is referencing, and gives no indication how he chooses what to include and what not to include nor how he evaluates his sources (other than to claim divine inspiration for his choices). He includes in this abridgement a collection of writings called the Small Plates of Nephi. Moroni adds his abridgement of the Book of Ether and a few of his own writings.

3) Based mostly on Moroni's promise and a few other passages, Moroni, at least, and perhaps Mormon, too, expected a measure of skepticism from his/their future readers. They encourage the reader to accept the text as "true," perhaps without further explaining what it means for the record to be "true."

That seems to me to be a summary of what the text claims for itself -- A divinely inspired summary of Nephite history based on the library of records that Mormon had access to in about 400 CE.

We in the 21st century generally acknowledge that ancient people didn't do history the same way that we do, and Mormon does not reveal much about his methodology. Mormon does say that his overall purpose is to testify of Christ, but does not elaborate on how that purpose influenced choices he made while summarizing the history. This could be important because we can look at other texts and see how an author's purposes influence the history they write. I am far from an expert, but I have had some quick introductions to the conflicts and comparisons between the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles in the Old Testament, and how the differences reflect differences in the authors' basic theologies and purposes for writing these histories. In the case of the BoM, we have no alternative histories to compare to and we don't have access to any of Mormon's source documents.

Does that seem accurate?

Thanks for this reply. I appreciate the time and attention it took to write it out. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

In looking at one of his books on Amazon, I came across a review that got me thinking. The review made the point that Stubb's work adds to the "enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." I pondered on that statement for a while, and decided I would bring that question here. It has most likely been asked in a hundred ways or more, but my question is a bit specific. What does the Book of Mormon (just the text, not the title page, which I believe has been amended several times) claim for itself? Not, "What does each of you claim for it" or "What do I claim for it?" What does it claim for itself within its own text? Not what the Doctrine and Covenants claims for it. . . . but what does the book itself claim for itself, and in which text do we find those claims?

The title page (the actual title page) of the Book of Mormon hasn't changed (except for the "Author and Proprietor" portion).  The title page was part of the Book of Mormon translation, so it really should be taken into account when considering what "the Book of Mormon... claims to be".

This is what Joseph Smith said about the title page:  "I wish to mention here, that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title-page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 7)

This is the 1830 edition title page:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7

This all speaks to the question of what the book claims for itself:

Quote

AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON UPON PLATES FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

 

[JVW]

9 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The title page (the actual title page) of the Book of Mormon hasn't changed (except for the "Author and Proprietor" portion).  The title page was part of the Book of Mormon translation, so it really should be taken into account when considering what "the Book of Mormon... claims to be".

This is what Joseph Smith said about the title page:  "I wish to mention here, that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title-page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 7)

This is the 1830 edition title page:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7

This all speaks to the question of what the book claims for itself:

 

The title page is underrated TBH. People take the JST as more doctrinally sound than the Title Page when the opposite is true.

[Ryan Dahle]

Quote

 

The title page is underrated TBH. People take the JST as more doctrinally sound than the Title Page when the opposite is true.

 

The title page is definitely part of the original text, most likely written by Moroni but drawing upon editorial claims made by Mormon and also Nephi. It is definitely underappreciated. See the following link:

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/title-page-intertextuality

 

Edited October 20, 2025 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks. 

See my comment above on the Title Page, as it gives a pretty good summary of the text's own claims. Another important thing to consider is that the Book of Mormon prophesies of its own significance in the Restoration and gathering of Israel. It predicts Joseph Smith's translation. It predicts the three witnesses (and other witnesses). And so forth. So its claims transcend its own history. 

In turn, the unique nature of the Book of Mormon's discovery and translation make it testable in many areas (history, literary studies, linguistics, geography, science, etc.) that aren't available for the Bible or other religious texts. This is something of a double-edged sword, as it opens up the possibility for varying degrees of confirmation or disconfirmation of its claims in a multitude of areas. In any case, I believe that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers, by far, the most objectively "testable" set of religious claims of any religion in the world. That doesn't mean that it is primarily intended to be tested in that manner or that the Church itself places a lot of emphasis on such secular evidence, either for or against the Church's claims. But there IS an enormous body of evidence supporting its claims from a wide variety of fields. That is objectively demonstrable. 

Edited October 20, 2025 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The title page is definitely part of the original text, most likely written by Moroni but drawing upon editorial claims made by Mormon and also Nephi. It is definitely underappreciated. See the following link:

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/title-page-intertextuality

 

Good to see you again, Ryan.  Checking your profile, it’s just over a year since you last posted.  Glad you broke the drought.  

[rpn]

Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon AFTER he received a vision of our day.   That doesn't say to me that Mormon did things on his own.   It is the vision he was given that dictated what is in the Book of Mormon (though of course there remains the question of how much detail he was inspired with).

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have read the BOM on a number of occasions. I cannot remember (not saying it doesn't exist) where it makes a claim for itself as a collection of texts joined as one. Just to be fair (no pun intended), I could ask the same question related to the Bible. I am unaware of it making claims for itself as a volume in its entirety. This question seeks to neither challenge nor confirm The Book of Mormon. Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks. 

It would indeed be odd (as you point out) for the text to to make claims about itself in its entirety. Words of Mormon probably comes as close as you can get to it - and only verses 1-11. Verses 12-18 are likely pulled from the last bit of Mosiah Chapter 2 (original manuscript chapter numbering) - the fragment of chapter 2 that was left - most of Chapter 2 would have been on the manuscript that was loaned out and lost. But, if you want to have some sense of where I go with the question - I have only really discussed in detail the text's display of its own phenomenological self in 1 and 2 Nephi, and I do it in this essay here. I think that there is something really interesting that occurs there with regard to the way that the text uses Isaiah (so much of which is quoted in 2 Nephi) that it might lay some foundation for the idea of more texts.

I might also point out the fact that the way that the Book of Mormon editors/authors put together the text isn't all that similar to what our modern historians do. I like what Moroni writes in Ether 1:1-2 -

Quote

And now I, Moroni, proceed to give an account of those ancient inhabitants who were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country. And I take mine account from the twenty and four plates which were found by the people of Limhi, which is called the Book of Ether.

Especially when we contrast this with Ether 6:1

Quote

And now I, Moroni, proceed to give the record of Jared and his brother.

There is stuff between these two sections that isn't the Jaredite record at all - Moroni (like Nephi in my essay) is resetting the expectation, and starting over (having recognized that what he provided isn't what he said he was going to). And while this is a really noticeable example, if we look we can find all sorts of editorial insertions and comments in the text where Mormon and Moroni are providing something that wasn't in their sources as a way of explaining or enhancing the narrative. In a way, this means that we don't have a joining of sources into one, we have a history that is being composed new but which relies on earlier sources. Some of those sources are identified as separate documents (letters, texts which are quoted) but most are not. And even when we get a source (like the Jaredite record) we are often being given a highly redacted version. The potential exception to this is the small plates, which WoM verse 6 where Mormon writes: "But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, ..." and which we usually understand as meaning that he simply took the small plates and placed them at the end of his (and later Moroni's) text.

And of course, then we have the question of translation. We need to be careful not to conflate the Book of Mormon with the Gold Plates.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

About fifteen minutes ago I was wrapping up the time I wanted to spend learning about Brian D. Stubbs resulting from another thread. I became a bit disinterested when he made several claims in his writing to be an "authority" on this or that. Methinks that kind of evaluation is best left to others.

In looking at one of his books on Amazon, I came across a review that got me thinking. The review made the point that Stubb's work adds to the "enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be." I pondered on that statement for a while, and decided I would bring that question here. It has most likely been asked in a hundred ways or more, but my question is a bit specific. What does the Book of Mormon (just the text, not the title page, which I believe has been amended several times) claim for itself? Not, "What does each of you claim for it" or "What do I claim for it?" What does it claim for itself within its own text? Not what the Doctrine and Covenants claims for it. . . . but what does the book itself claim for itself, and in which text do we find those claims?

I have read the BOM on a number of occasions. I cannot remember (not saying it doesn't exist) where it makes a claim for itself as a collection of texts joined as one. Just to be fair (no pun intended), I could ask the same question related to the Bible. I am unaware of it making claims for itself as a volume in its entirety. This question seeks to neither challenge nor confirm The Book of Mormon. Just asking, "What is it that the Book of Mormon claims to be based on its own sense of its own phenomenological self? Thanks. 

As Moroni put it, "these things," which are His father's abridgements, words and inserts, the small plates of Nephi, and his own words. See Moroni 10.

[Navidad]

Perhaps an add-on question. . . . In his own words, what did Joseph specifically claim about the canonicity or revelation (inspiration?) of the Book of Mormon and about his own position as prophet, seer, and revelator? I probably should know this, and I am embarrassed for asking, but where did the term "prophet, seer, and revelator" originate? I guess that is two more questions! 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

enormous body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be."

This is clearly hyperbole and wishful thinking. But it is effective apologetics.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This is clearly hyperbole and wishful thinking. But it is effective apologetics.

OK. I would simply add that there is most likely much of that in every ideological endeavor of whatever type.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Navidad

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps an add-on question. . . . In his own words, what did Joseph specifically claim about the canonicity or revelation (inspiration?) of the Book of Mormon and about his own position as prophet, seer, and revelator? I probably should know this, and I am embarrassed for asking, but where did the term "prophet, seer, and revelator" originate? I guess that is two more questions! 

This covers a lot of ground.

So first, the revelation of the Book of Mormon - Joseph Smith's favorite phrase was that the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God". But, when Joseph Smith uses this phrase, he is quoting from the Book of Mormon. And this means that what Joseph Smith meant by it incorporates how he understood the phrase (how he interpreted it) from the text of the Book of Mormon. I think that this contains within it a distinct sense of revelation. Although not conforming to later practice, the Book of Mormon was presented to the early LDS movement in what was called the Articles and Covenants (dating is uncertain - but it was approved by the new church on June 9, 1830)

Quote

For after that it truly was manifested unto the first elder that he had received remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world, but after truly repenting, God visited him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all whiteness, and gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high, and gave unto him power, by the means of which was before prepared that he should translate a book; which book contains a record of a fallen people, and also the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and also to the Jews, proving unto them that the holy scriptures be true, and also that God doth inspire men and call them to his holy work in these last days, as well as in days of old, that he may be the same God forever—amen.

Which book, given by inspiration, is called the Book of Mormon, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and declared unto the world by them. Wherefore, having so great witnesses, by them shall the world be judged, even as many as shall hereafter receive this work, either to faith and righteousness, or to the hardness of heart in unbelief to their own condemnation. For the Lord God hath spoken it, for we elders of the church have heard and bear record to the words of the glorious Majesty on high, to whom be glory forever and ever—Amen.

There is, in that document another discussion which is central to your question about canon -

Quote

And we know that these things are true and agreeable to the revelations of Jesus Christ which was signified by his angel unto John, neither adding nor diminishing to the prophecy of his book; neither to the holy scriptures; neither to the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, neither by the voice of God, neither by the ministering of angels. And the Lord God hath spoken it—and honor, power, and glory be rendered to his holy name both now and ever.—Amen.

You can see (and this is really early) that already there is a concern about how to open the canon and where to put the Book of Mormon. This is the beginning of where it settles - something that is not added to the Bible (and so doesn't conflict with the statement on scripture in the Revelation of John - no matter how you understand it), and the reference to what will come later. But here there is an awareness of the forthcoming Book of Commandments (the contents were chosen in late 1831).

Now, on the issue of "prophet, seer, and revelator," this formulation isn't the original version. It's source comes from what is now Section 21 (April 6, 1830):

Quote

Behold there Shall a Record be kept among you & in it thou shalt be called a seer & Translater & Prophet.

The exact formula would take longer to put together. In Section 107, for example (early 1835) we get this (and you can see here a shift towards the later usage):

Quote

And again, the duty of the president of the office of the high priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses. Behold, here is wisdom—yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator and a prophet—having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.

In 1841 (Section 124) that we see the formula more or less as we see it now - and it is applied to others (not specifically to Joseph Smith). 

Quote

And, again, verily I say unto you that my servant William, be appointed, ordained, and anointed as a counsellor unto my servant Joseph in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of priesthood and patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father by blessing and also by right, that from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people, that who ever he blesses shall be blessed, and who ever he curseth shall be cursed, that whatsoever he shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and, that whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and from this time forth I appoint unto him, that he may be a prophet and a seer and a revelator unto my church as well as my servant Joseph, that he may act in concert also, with my servant Joseph, and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, ...

There is some fluidity for a while, and it isn't really until post Brigham Young that we get this formula applied consistently. I think (personal opinion) that in general, none of Joseph's counselors or successors considered themselves as "translators" and so we follow the formula as it was spelled out in Section 124 (and perhaps the notion of translator begins to be embedded in the notion of revelator). Even Brigham Young, who was recognized by the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator, did not (apparently) like to use the phrase to describe himself.

Having said all of that, I think that Joseph really understood what he did as the "seer" part of all of this (and certainly we have his use of seer stones). In Section 127 (a letter he wrote in late 1842), he closed it with this: "And I subscribe myself your servant in the Lord, prophet and seer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I think that Section 107 is really a good place to start in terms of how Joseph Smith understood his role. There his role is described like Moses - and the calling of the Seventy in that section reminds us of the seventy elders called out by Moses as prophets. The connection there should be evident - much like Moses, Joseph could not oversee the Church in its every detail and every place. So this is a complex question not just in terms of the history of the phrase but also in the sense that the LDS Church was growing from a small movement (pre-1830) to a church (1830), to a large organization which was geographically diverse. And with these changes, there is, I think, a natural reunderstanding of what it meant to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator". To put this question to Joseph Smith is to recognize that there are different Joseph Smiths who might answer this question - and each one would answer this question in different ways. And, of course, I realize that I haven't really answered your questions.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This is clearly hyperbole and wishful thinking. But it is effective apologetics.

There is a lot of evidence in support of the authenticity of the BOM, but of course evidence is not proof, and not everyone would find the evidence persuasive (and none of it would prove the theological claims).

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This covers a lot of ground.

So first, the revelation of the Book of Mormon - Joseph Smith's favorite phrase was that the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God". But, when Joseph Smith uses this phrase, he is quoting from the Book of Mormon. And this means that what Joseph Smith meant by it incorporates how he understood the phrase (how he interpreted it) from the text of the Book of Mormon. I think that this contains within it a distinct sense of revelation. Although not conforming to later practice, the Book of Mormon was presented to the early LDS movement in what was called the Articles and Covenants (dating is uncertain - but it was approved by the new church on June 9, 1830)

Thanks ever so much. This is incredibly interesting and helpful. I haven't had an opportunity to do a deep dive into all that your response deserves, but my initial reactions are as follows:

The original Articles and Covenants that I read (from your link) is quite orthodox and even Evangelical in just about every way. I say that in the belief that my LDS friends err when they interpret other churches's teachings about revelation to be that they believe in no continuing revelation. If that were true, we would never be taught to pray to seek and discover God's will and direction for our lives. Of course, as an Evangelical, I believe in new and additional revelation in addition to that found in the Bible. I don't know anyone in my community who does not.

The original Articles and Covenants could be the statement of faith, articles of faith, or, dare I say, creed of virtually any Arminian Christian group. My reformed friends would have some issues with some of the things therein, but they also would have issues with more than a few of my beliefs as well. That doesn't mean they or I are not Christians. We just disagree on stuff. So let it be for the Saints!

That leads me to my third reaction. There is not a hint of "Onlyism" in the document as I read it. As with many US-based restorationist groups, the "only" part, in my viewpoint, crept in as the church grew in sophistication, self-importance, and sense of persecution. I have even noticed a change recently in some of that, as the concern seems to have evolved from mistreatment at the hands of non-LDS to that of the ex-LDS. We Mennonites are experts at the innocent persecution part and readily avoid discussions of Münster, with its polygamy and violence. 

An analysis of each aspect of that original document and how it has changed, including why it is not more prominent in LDS-speak today, would be fascinating. I guess it is forgotten since it has clearly evolved into its modern version of a canon, especially as Doctrine and Covenants has morphed over time. I could join a church based on the document as it existed "in the beginning." I wouldn't have to disown or discredit my previous baptism. It would be like a Lutheran thing. I would have to be rebaptized to join, not because mine was invalid in the eyes of Christ and the Father, but just because that is a requirement of membership in some Lutheran groups. It would be more like the requirements of the Catholic Church. I can join without rebaptism because they accept the immersion as performed by my father. I would have to be trained, as in a catechism, and subsequently confirmed, but no bashing of anything that came before in my life, regardless of how important and precious that is to me. Oh, and it also includes the word "sanctification." Amen to that. That is a word that seems to have been dropped from LDS vocabulary. It seems sanctification and exaltation might be cousins, but probably not synonyms. Ok. That is it for now. Thanks ever so much for your response. I appreciate it very much. Wow! I like that 1830 doc.! 

Edited October 21, 2025 by Navidad

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

An analysis of each aspect of that original document and how it has changed, including why it is not more prominent in LDS-speak today, would be fascinating. I guess it is forgotten since it has clearly evolved into its modern version of a canon, especially as Doctrine and Covenants has morphed over time. I could join a church based on the document as it existed "in the beginning." I wouldn't have to disown or discredit my previous baptism. It would be like a Lutheran thing. I would have to be rebaptized to join, not because mine was invalid in the eyes of Christ and the Father, but just because that is a requirement of membership in some Lutheran groups. It would be more like the requirements of the Catholic Church. I can join without rebaptism because they accept the immersion as performed by my father. I would have to be trained, as in a catechism, and subsequently confirmed, but no bashing of anything that came before in my life, regardless of how important and precious that is to me. Oh, and it also includes the word "sanctification." Amen to that. That is a word that seems to have been dropped from LDS vocabulary. It seems sanctification and exaltation might be cousins, but probably not synonyms. Ok. That is it for now. Thanks ever so much for your response. I appreciate it very much. Wow! I like that 1830 doc.! 

I think that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that in that first generation, every single Mormon began their spiritual journey as something else.

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that in that first generation, every single Mormon began their spiritual journey as something else.

The Whitmers, for example, were Mennonites who helped found the River Brethren community before helping found the LDS church. I believe they were baptized several times in the Susquehanna River (probably as Mennonites and River Brethren) and then, as members of the LDS church, in Lake Seneca, one of the Finger Lakes.

As a boy, I went many times to summer camp at Letourneau Christian Camp on Lake Canandaigua while my father preached in the adult campground. It was another Finger Lake and home to a number of restorationist groups. I remember great music and preaching at that place. Wonderful religious history in that area. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

An analysis of each aspect of that original document and how it has changed, including why it is not more prominent in LDS-speak today, would be fascinating. I guess it is forgotten since it has clearly evolved into its modern version of a canon, especially as Doctrine and Covenants has morphed over time. I could join a church based on the document as it existed "in the beginning." I wouldn't have to disown or discredit my previous baptism. It would be like a Lutheran thing. I would have to be rebaptized to join, not because mine was invalid in the eyes of Christ and the Father, but just because that is a requirement of membership in some Lutheran groups. It would be more like the requirements of the Catholic Church. I can join without rebaptism because they accept the immersion as performed by my father. I would have to be trained, as in a catechism, and subsequently confirmed, but no bashing of anything that came before in my life, regardless of how important and precious that is to me. Oh, and it also includes the word "sanctification." Amen to that. That is a word that seems to have been dropped from LDS vocabulary. It seems sanctification and exaltation might be cousins, but probably not synonyms. Ok. That is it for now. Thanks ever so much for your response. I appreciate it very much. Wow! I like that 1830 doc.! 

You probably still would have had an issue.  D&C 22 (the one that says that you would need to be rebaptized because your previous baptism is "dead works") was also printed in that same paper that Benjamin McGuire linked to.  It is immediately after the Articles and Covenants.  This link - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-16-april-1830-dc-22/1 - will give you the text in easy to read format but you can find it in the scanned image from the previous link.

And the Articles and Covenants still exists in D&C.  It is section 20, though there have been several changes to it during Joseph's life time.  I don't think there were any after his death.

And I'm surprised you think "sanctification" is dropped from LDS vocabulary.  There's usually several lessons a year (especially during the Book of Mormon year) that discuss sanctification.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

You probably still would have had an issue.  D&C 22 (the one that says that you would need to be rebaptized because your previous baptism is "dead works") was also printed in that same paper that Benjamin McGuire linked to.  It is immediately after the Articles and Covenants.  This link - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-16-april-1830-dc-22/1 - will give you the text in easy to read format but you can find it in the scanned image from the previous link.

And the Articles and Covenants still exists in D&C.  It is section 20, though there have been several changes to it during Joseph's life time.  I don't think there were any after his death.

And I'm surprised you think "sanctification" is dropped from LDS vocabulary.  There's usually several lessons a year (especially during the Book of Mormon year) that discuss sanctification.

I most likely exaggerated when I said the word "sanctification" was dropped. I simply never heard it once in six years of attendance at an LDS ward - not in Elders Quorum, Gospel Doctrine or during a Sacrament talk. I obviously heard the sacrament prayers hundreds of times, but that was to sanctify the bread and water, not the people taking it. I have also chatted with many LDS folks at various conferences, and they have told me it historically was not used very much at all, and only recently do they remember hearing the word in church. I was also told once it is a term that "Christians" use. I am only referencing my own experience. Sorry for making a generalization. I dislike doing that. 

Edited October 21, 2025 by Navidad

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and it also includes the word "sanctification." Amen to that. That is a word that seems to have been dropped from LDS vocabulary.

Not according to conference usage.  It got slow for a time early last century, but has rebounded, especially the last five years it seems (we are at 17 and only halfway through the decade).

Edited October 21, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I most likely exaggerated when I said the word "sanctification" was dropped. I simply never heard it once in six years of attendance at an LDS ward - not in Elders Quorum, Gospel Doctrine or during a Sacrament talk. I obviously heard the sacrament prayers hundreds of times, but that was to sanctify the bread and water, not the people taking it. I have also chatted with many LDS folks at various conferences, and they have told me it historically was not used very much at all, and only recently do they remember hearing the word in church. I was also told once it is a term that "Christians" use. I am only referencing my own experience. Sorry for making a generalization. I dislike doing that. 

Compared to exaltation and salvation, yeah, it would not be very much.  And compared to other Christians, it is probably a lot less.  But it does show up.  Here's a 2020 Book of Mormon less which has a section titled "Sanctification comes from yielding our hearts to God." - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-book-of-mormon-2020/33?lang=eng

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not according to conference usage.  It got slow for a time early last century, but has rebounded, especially the last five years it seems (we are at 17 and only halfway through the decade).

Of course it would be interesting to determine the context in which the word was used. It also would be fun to figure out how it reaches down into the vocabulary of the average pew member, let's just say for fun in a ward in distant Chihuahua! I thihk it would be used four times a week in a sermon in an Evangelical community. It is a very important concept, second only to salvation. Take care all.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Navidad

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. I would simply add that there is most likely much of that in every ideological endeavor of whatever type.

Yes. Religion is plagued by such things. And religious apologetics is flawed from the beginning. It all starts with the premise that what is being defended is absolutely true. Then any "evidence" or arguments that can even slightly provide plausibility it is thus used.  I do not know if any other comparably bad methodology for defending something.