Why No Exhortation To Read The D&C During Conference, Or In General?

[Bikeemikey]

It seems to me that most of the time we talk as a church about the importance of scripture reading we are emphasizing the importance of reading the BOM.

I realize the Joseph Smith did refer to it as the most correct of all books and we could get closer to Christ reading it than by any other book, but it does make me wonder a little bit.

However, I don't think the D&C was published or even canonized when JS made is statement (please correct this assertion if I is a mistake), if it had been would the statement still have been made?

As a church we talk tough about the importance of modern day revelation but seem to reserve the place of most important scripture to the BOM which is the recordings of prophets at least 1600 years old. Does this really make sense?

It seems that the most important book in terms of theology and doctrine that we have today is really the D&C.

So here is the question I have: can I get closer to Christ reading the BOM than if I were to read the D&C, or at the very least, can I get as close to Christ reading the D&C as I could if I read the BOM?

This has special relevance especially in missionary work. Why not go straight for modern day revelation and teach people primarily from Conference, the Ensign, and the D&C?

Any thoughts?

[Sky]

In my opinion, The Book of Mormon contains more "milk", whereas the Doctrine and Covenants contains more "meat." The Book of Mormon is directed more towards the world at large (to convince the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ), whereas the D&C is directed more towards the affairs of the modern day Church. It is prudent to use primarily the Book of Mormon as a conversion tool. But the D&C is wonderful and unique, and studying it can most definitely bring us closer to Christ. We also study the D&C (along with all of the other standard works) every four years in Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine).

Edited April 4, 2012 by Sky

[Doctrine 612]

I say just read all the books with equal zeal their all good for you i promise lol

[rongo]

I love the Book of Mormon, but D&C is my favorite. There are also notable people who were converted by the D&C when the Book of Mormon did nothing for them (Daniel H. Wells, for one ---- member of the First Presidency. He wasn't impressed by Joseph Smith, but developed a testimony as a non-Mormon resident in post-martyrdom Nauvoo). B.H. Roberts also mentioned in General Conference a woman (from his missions) who felt no spiritual confirmation from the Book of Mormon but felt a powerful one from D&C and joined the Church. Each person is different and is affected differently by different things. All of the "weapons in our arsenal" are important.

However, as President Benson stressed, there is a special spirit and power with the Book of Mormon that flows into your life when you seriously study it. It has a converting influence with those who actually sit down and read it. I think it's main value is as a tangible witness of the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims ---- it's something tangible people can hold and read and ask themselves if he or a committee of men could have produced this without divine involvement.

[Damien the Leper]

I have a harder time reading the BoM because of the King James English. But that doesn't take away the sacred experience I've had with it. However, I also feel a deeper connection to the D&C because of its relevance to the modern worldview.

[Avatar4321]

The Book of Mormon was written for us in our day. It teaches us specifically the patterns to look for preceeding the Second Coming.

I would think it's obvious why we are told to read the Book of Mormon specifically. It's because of the unique purpose it has for us these last days.

[why me]

It seems to me that most of the time we talk as a church about the importance of scripture reading we are emphasizing the importance of reading the BOM.

I realize the Joseph Smith did refer to it as the most correct of all books and we could get closer to Christ reading it than by any other book, but it does make me wonder a little bit.

However, I don't think the D&C was published or even canonized when JS made is statement (please correct this assertion if I is a mistake), if it had been would the statement still have been made?

As a church we talk tough about the importance of modern day revelation but seem to reserve the place of most important scripture to the BOM which is the recordings of prophets at least 1600 years old. Does this really make sense?

It seems that the most important book in terms of theology and doctrine that we have today is really the D&C.

So here is the question I have: can I get closer to Christ reading the BOM than if I were to read the D&C, or at the very least, can I get as close to Christ reading the D&C as I could if I read the BOM?

This has special relevance especially in missionary work. Why not go straight for modern day revelation and teach people primarily from Conference, the Ensign, and the D&C?

Any thoughts?

I think that the stress on the book of mormon these days has more to do with testimony and spiritual confirmation that it is true. If the book of mormon is true and we have it verified by the Holy Ghost, many members would be less likely to leave the faith over something historical in lds history. I think that the D&C is important but we also need to remember that the D&C was basically for the saints at that time. And when we studied it, we studied the revelations and their meaning for us today but also why the saints needed such revelations as a church body.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks for you thoughts on this so far.

I think that the stress on the book of mormon these days has more to do with testimony and spiritual confirmation that it is true. If the book of mormon is true and we have it verified by the Holy Ghost, many members would be less likely to leave the faith over something historical in lds history. I think that the D&C is important but we also need to remember that the D&C was basically for the saints at that time. And when we studied it, we studied the revelations and their meaning for us today but also why the saints needed such revelations as a church body.

A couple of specific questions to Why Me (others feel free to propose an answer if you have one). If we have a spiritual witness of the BOM is that a more powerful platform in our lives than a spiritual witness of the D&C. Can I have a strong testimony of the church based on a testimony of the D&C and not the BOM?

Your last couple of sentences are very intriguing to me. The BOM, written around 2000 years ago is written specifically for our time. Where as the D&C written 150ish years ago is not? I am not sure this makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.

It also seems to make the idea of modern day revelation subordinate to historical or older revelation.

It would seem to me that if we are really serious about the importance of modern day revelation then we would start current and work back in the texts that can lead us closer to God. Aare we saying that we believe in modern day revelation, we just don't think modern day prophets have said anything as important as olden day prophets. Again, I realize this is an over-simplification of the complexity of topic.

Do we in practice think modern day revelation is as important as we claim in theory? And what does this mean about the emphasis on older scripture over new modern day scripture.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

Why not go straight for modern day revelation and teach people primarily from Conference, the Ensign, and the D&C? Any thoughts?

Since I am well outside the loop on such decisions, I am okay with trusting how Christ, through his chosen leaders, have decided to approach things.

It is a relief to know that I don't need to weary my head contemplating how to steady this ark, but can focus instead on matters that are within my purview. Rather than contemplating which book of scripture may bring me closer to Christ, I am at liberty to use them all, and can concentrate on actually coming closer to Christ.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks for you thoughts on this so far.

A couple of specific questions to Why Me (others feel free to propose an answer if you have one). If we have a spiritual witness of the BOM is that a more powerful platform in our lives than a spiritual witness of the D&C. Can I have a strong testimony of the church based on a testimony of the D&C and not the BOM? ...

There is much in the Doctrine and Covenants which meets the test set forth in the 13th Article of Faith of being "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy," and thus, there are many things in it that we should "seek after." It's worth remembering, however, that there is no promise in the Doctrine and Covenants analogous to Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon, and there is no condemnation regarding treating the Doctrine and Covenants lightly, as there is regarding doing the same with the Book of Mormon in Doctrine and Covenants 84:54-58.

Just food for thought.

[Bernard Gui]

We spend a year studying it in Sunday school. Does that count?

Bernard

[LeSellers]

I've read the whole topic, but am not sure at all if I saw this as one of the possible reasons:

We're not doing Church History/Doctrine and Covenants this year in Sunday School. I am not saying that, were we, there would have been any such exhortation, but there is a parallel in our ward: when the Book of Mormon is the Sunday School manual for the year, our bishop (this was the second time it's happened here since we've moved into the ward, and that was a couple of bishops back) has challenged us to read the Book of Mormon that/this year, based on President Benson's statement, if not more.

I admit that there has been no corresponding challenge to read any of the other Standard Works in the rotation, but we do hear, from the pulpit especially on Fast Sunday, that we should be reading them.

As to favorite books of scripture, I love the Old Testament best: it explains the Gospel very clearly when we have the stereoscopic advantage of the rest of scripture. I love the Doctrine and Covenant because it's tailored for our time and one need not extract the doctrine or the covenants from its historical narrative (rather much the contrary: we have to supply the history to be able to grasp the full meaning of the text).

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Does this work for you?

The Doctrine and Covenants brings men to Christ's kingdom, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 'the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth' (D&C 1:30]. ...

The Book of Mormon is the "keystone" of our religion, and the Doctrine and Covenants is the capstone, with continuing latter-day revelation. The Lord has placed His stamp of approval on both the keystone and the capstone. (Ezra Taft Benson, in Conference Report, April 1987).

When I taught the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History course in Gospel Doctrine class, I did admonish the class members to read the Doctrine and Covenants. Does that count?

[rongo]

Can I have a strong testimony of the church based on a testimony of the D&C and not the BOM?.

My answer would be, "Absolutely." Without hesitation. And that person's borne testimony would be more powerful when bearing it about D&C than the BoM, because it is authentic and heartfelt. I've always thought that we should testify about the things that are most meaningful and powerful to us, and this is different for different people.

I think Brigham Young most concisely categorized the difference between D&C and BoM when he said:

"The Book of Mormon contains the same plan of salvation that the Lord requires the world to listen to, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is given for the Latter-day Saints expressly for their everyday walk and actions." (Brigham Young, September 4, 1873. Journal of Discourses 16:188)

The fact is that the talks in Journal of Discourses (ca. 10,000 pages in 26 volumes from 1851 to 1886) very rarely quote from the Book of Mormon. Scriptural citations are almost always Old/New Testament and D&C. Mormons in the early days seemed to regard the Book of Mormon more as a tangible witness than a source of doctrine. Of course, it is *the* gold mine for "first principles" doctrine, but it would fall upon later generations to discover that. Early generations didn't read it nearly as much as the Bible and the "revelations," except as a conversion tool.

[Bikeemikey]

We spend a year studying it in Sunday school. Does that count?

Bernard

I am the Sunday School teacher in my Ward and enjoy that we rotate through the standard works - one every year. That does bring a nice balance to the Sunday School class.

However, I do find that given the D&C class is merged with Church History it seems to undermine or distort what the D&C is. The D&C is not a historical account of the early church, nor is it a personal journal of the prophet JS during hard times. I personally feel the merging of D&C and Church history into a single year fails to provide time to adequately deal with either, and most of the time/conversation ends up being skewed towards history - at least in my ward.

IMHO, this makes the D&C one of the most under-studied books in our standard woks. Again, interesting given that it is our only canonized modern day revelation.

[Bikeemikey]

I admit that there has been no corresponding challenge to read any of the other Standard Works in the rotation, but we do hear, from the pulpit especially on Fast Sunday, that we should be reading them.

Lehi

It is interesting to me that there has never been, at least in my life time, a challenge to read the D&C in the same way as there has been with the BOM. Again, this is the only canonized modern day revelation that we have in our scriptures. At the same time we say that modern day revelation is one of the most important parts of the restored gospel.

[Bikeemikey]

The fact is that the talks in Journal of Discourses (ca. 10,000 pages in 26 volumes from 1851 to 1886) very rarely quote from the Book of Mormon. Scriptural citations are almost always Old/New Testament and D&C. Mormons in the early days seemed to regard the Book of Mormon more as a tangible witness than a source of doctrine. Of course, it is *the* gold mine for "first principles" doctrine, but it would fall upon later generations to discover that. Early generations didn't read it nearly as much as the Bible and the "revelations," except as a conversion tool.

This is indeed very interesting. It seems a shame to have drifted so far from this early appreciation for the modern day revelation of the D&C. Also, I personally don't think that the BOM is the gold mine of "clear" doctrinal exposition we say it is. I feel that many doctrinal propositions expressed in the BOM are somewhat ambiguous. I feel I read doctrinal clarity into the BOM text in virtue of my pre-existing doctrinal understanding that has actually been clearly expressed, clarified and/or revealed through the D&C.

[Bikeemikey]

There is much in the Doctrine and Covenants which meets the test set forth in the 13th Article of Faith of being "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy," and thus, there are many things in it that we should "seek after." It's worth remembering, however, that there is no promise in the Doctrine and Covenants analogous to Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon, and there is no condemnation regarding treating the Doctrine and Covenants lightly, as there is regarding doing the same with the Book of Mormon in Doctrine and Covenants 84:54-58.

Just food for thought.

Isn't it the case that God answers all prayers that honestly seek for knowledge? The D&C also has many scriptures about knock and it will be opened to you. The D&C expressly uses the language mystery as one of many things that will be revealed if we follow god. The BOM does not. Does this mean we can only get answers to mysteries if we read the D&C vs the BOM. The idea that you can get a spiritual response to the BOM through prayer that you can not get through other scriptures runs contrary to the words of almost every prophet in every book of scripture we have. All scriptures tell us if we ask for an answer we can get it - the BOM specifically expresses this view more clearly than most.

I don't think we should treat the BOM lightly - I think we should respect all scripture. Perhaps, base on the principle of modern day revelation, we should pay more attention and time to the D&C that perhaps we currently are.

Again there has never been a challenge from any pulpit, Stake, ward or general conference, that has challenged the saints to read the D&C cover to cover. I would say every year I can remember this challenge has been expressed from the pulpit at least a few times.

[Bikeemikey]

Can anyone find a challenge to read the D&C cover to cover from any conference talk?

[Mark Beesley]

The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants governs them once they have come.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can anyone find a challenge to read the D&C cover to cover from any conference talk?

Can you find such a challenge pertaining to any of the Standard Works except the Book of Mormon?

[Bikeemikey]

Can you find such a challenge pertaining to any of the Standard Works except the Book of Mormon?

That was also something I was wondering.

It does seem to me that currently we elevate the BOM to a different status than the rest of our scriptures. Perhaps the challenge to read it is a result of recognizing the BOM as "better" scripture.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants governs them once they have come.

Why does the BOM would bring men to Christ more effectively than the D&C? Is the doctrines and covenants not also prophetic testimony of the savior?

I am not disputing your claim, I am just not sure I accept it - and if I do I couldnt tell you why.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am the Sunday School teacher in my Ward and enjoy that we rotate through the standard works - one every year. That does bring a nice balance to the Sunday School class.

However, I do find that given the D&C class is merged with Church History it seems to undermine or distort what the D&C is. The D&C is not a historical account of the early church, nor is it a personal journal of the prophet JS during hard times. I personally feel the merging of D&C and Church history into a single year fails to provide time to adequately deal with either, and most of the time/conversation ends up being skewed towards history - at least in my ward.

IMHO, this makes the D&C one of the most under-studied books in our standard woks. Again, interesting given that it is our only canonized modern day revelation.

To me, it makes sense to study them together, because Church history is, in fact, the setting for the entire Doctrine and Covenants. If we were to study them apart from each other, it seems to me we would be going over a lot of the same material twice.

The Doctrine and Covenants is unlike the other Standard Works in that it doesn't have a narrative component. When you read and study the Bible, you are, at the same time, to some degree studying the history of God's covenant people through the narrative contained in and integral to the Old and New Testaments. Same with the Book of Mormon. Not so with the Doctrine and Covenants since, as I said, that narrative is not present except for what is in the brief section headings.

[Scott Lloyd]

That was also something I was wondering.

It does seem to me that currently we elevate the BOM to a different status than the rest of our scriptures. Perhaps the challenge to read it is a result of recognizing the BOM as "better" scripture.

I don't think it heresy to say that not all scripture is created equal; that is to say, some scripture is of greater value and use than other.

I have set a goal for myself to read the Old Testament from start to finish and am currently slogging through Numbers. I'm also reading the Book of Mormon again. I have to say that reading them side by side makes it very clear that much (certainly not all) of the content in the five Books of Moses seems to be of marginal relevance and value, while the Book of Mormon, even after multiple readings, still resonates with me.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd