savedbygrace Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Was there any need for the Book of Mormon?
Maidservant Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Need for a Book of Mormon?Is there a need for anything?Can you elaborate, my friend?The Book of Mormon just is. If you have ancient people (prophets) making records on metal plates, then it simply exists, ready to be found.One thing that we imagine God has always done is to encourage his people to make and keep records, particularly of His dealings with them. LDS people are commanded/encouraged to keep journals.So if people just do this, then it's there. It's not dependent on need.However, much can be said of the consequences of the Book of Mormon and the foundation that it is to our modern day spiritual journey in this world. Edited January 27, 2013 by Maidservant 1
Freedom Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 It contains the fullness of the gospel, teachings that were lost from the bible. One could ask, is there any need for the new testament, or for the book of Genesis. It is a second testament of the Savior and provides great clarification on precepts that were lost during the apostasy. 1
savedbygrace Posted January 27, 2013 Author Posted January 27, 2013 It's just that we have God's word in the Bible, as so much of the BoM is taken from the Bible, and nothing new is really in it, theologically then why was it necessary in this great restoration. The BoM doesn't teach mormoism any more than the Bible does, that's all in the D&C etc, so why?
savedbygrace Posted January 27, 2013 Author Posted January 27, 2013 Freedom,p lease elaborate, the fullness of the gospel according to your church is not in it. JS needed ancillary writings to produce the fullness of the gospel, what great clarifications? What is found, theologically, that is not in the Bible.My feeling is that it can be completely bypassed which I think the RLDS are doing, the Bible and the rest of your mormon doctrine should be enough as this work adds nothing.
livy111us Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 I don't know about you, but if God speaks to mankind I want to know about. I will never stop hearing what he has to say nor tell Him that I have heard enough from Him and His dealings with man. 4
TAO Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Savedbygrace, in my opinion, one of the reasons the BoM is nice is because it generally speaks in plainer terms than the Bible. It spells things out in a much clearer way oftentimes. One could say it's easier to read and understand. Or so I have found it. Then again, it's my opinion.In terms of theology, it does add some new things to it. For example, it adds details about the fall (necessity of and such) and the atonement (Christ suffering for our illnesses as well) which the Bible does not have. It also talks about Christ in a much more personal light than the Bible does. For instance, when Christ is blessing each of the children one by one, and such... that chapter is very emotional, and the Bible isn't quite like that.Beyond that, it's always nice to have more scripture to relate to. In the Bible, there is David and Goliath, Joseph in Egypt, all of the parables of Christ, etc. And having more is just... well.. great! I love relating to the stories about the Sons of Helaman, the Brother of Jared, and Moroni. And then there's the parable of the Olive Grove, and other good things like that. I appreciate those stories greatly, and I'd be unfortunate if I didn't have them. They've provided me much strength over the last few years. And they aren't in the Bible... I need the Book of Mormon for those.So yeah... I think there are things the Book of Mormon does, that the Bible does not, and vise versa. They are both useful to me.Best of Wishes,-TAO Edited January 27, 2013 by TAO 4
Maidservant Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 It's just that we have God's word in the Bible, theologically then why was it necessary in this great restoration. Okay. Fair question. I can only answer what I understand.Perhaps it's less about the content and more about the fact that as a world of God's children we needed to know that God still speaks and that he speaks to more than just one people. That God does indeed have a lot more to say than what is in the Bible, and we have no right to shut his mouth.Of course, the Book of Mormon is presented as an ancient, Hebrew ish record as well, so it's not God speaking modernly, which you more or less point out here: nothing new is really in it . . . The BoM doesn't teach mormoism any more than the Bible does, that's all in the D&C etc, so why?So then I would say a couple of things.The Book of Mormon provides an introductory touchstone to people who encounter the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They can hold it, ready it, think about it, feel its spirit, act upon it (asking for a spiritual witness). If they have spiritual confirmation on this one matter, then it provides a foundation to their entire gospel journey and they can go back to that spiritual experience and to the waters of the actual content of the Book of Mormon over and over again.The Book of Mormon CONFIRMS the Bible's testimony of Jesus Christ. Don't overlook this. NOT a contradiction to the Bible's testimony, but to declare to the world out there that has the Bible and who may still wonder of the truth of a Savior, here is a second witness that the Bible and its message of a Savior IS the truth. It is meant to support the Bible, not supplant.However, one thing about the Bible is the manner of its arrival in our hands in this day and age. It is a compilation over time. Not a bad thing, but one does have to be aware of this. The Book of Mormon is also a compilation, but it was done by one man, Mormon. And the presentation of the Book of Mormon in our modern age was by a singular event--the delivery of the plates to one man, Joseph; gift by God to translate (or however one wishes to best understand that); and to publish it. It was all done in one go, one miraculous go. Either Joseph Smith did this by the power of God, these events surrounding the producing of this volume (or he did not). It's something we all have to reckon for ourselves that it was miraculously produced by GOD (not Joseph Smith).One can also think that GOD tended directly to the Bible and that we have in our hands exactly what he wants. I tend to think that in a lot of ways (not all ways). But I also think that most people have no idea how the Bible got to be where it is now, and I think this is a weakness of it; not to the discarding of the Bible, but that it is a blessing to have the Book of Mormon to support it. 2
cesc101 Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Was there any need for the Book of Mormon?it "was", and it still IS, a tangible evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. 3
volgadon Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Was there any need for the Book of Mormon?Was there any need for more than one book of the New Testament? 4
volgadon Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 It's just that we have God's word in the Bible, as so much of the BoM is taken from the Bible, and nothing new is really in it, theologically then why was it necessary in this great restoration. The BoM doesn't teach mormoism any more than the Bible does, that's all in the D&C etc, so why?You have some of God's word. Anyway, if there is nothing really new theologically in the BoM, why do you object to it? As I noted above, your argument could be extended to any book of scripture. 2
Gillebre Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 it "was", and it still IS, a tangible evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.cesc101 hit the nail on the head. the purpose of the Book of Mormon, aside from inviting all men to come unto Christ and repent, is to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was the Prophet he claimed to be.
Nathair/|\ Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 As I've said elsewhere and often, it seems to me that The Book of Mormon is the best reason to recognize Christ as unique among the gods, indeed as God of gods and the God of all nations in the universe.
Nathair/|\ Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) 13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— 15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;Jesus Christ, quoted in 2 Nephi 27. This is the fullness of the gospel. All other doctrines, principles, and practices are accessory to it. Edited January 27, 2013 by Nathair 3
blackstrap Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 If, in the future, a group of documents where found in China that proved to be 3000 + years old,and spoke of the visit of Christ to the ancient peoples there, would the Christian world reject them as "not the Bible " ? I suspect some would, particularly if there were some doctrines expressed therein that contradicted current thinking.
volgadon Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Freedom,p lease elaborate, the fullness of the gospel according to your church is not in it. JS needed ancillary writings to produce the fullness of the gospel, what great clarifications? What is found, theologically, that is not in the Bible.My feeling is that it can be completely bypassed which I think the RLDS are doing, the Bible and the rest of your mormon doctrine should be enough as this work adds nothing.This old chestnut. Here is a good response, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=130 , and here is an even better one, beginning on p. 27. http://archive.org/stream/conferencereport1922a#page/n27/mode/2up Compare that to the opening of D&C 76. 2
Freedom Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Freedom,p lease elaborate, the fullness of the gospel according to your church is not in it. JS needed ancillary writings to produce the fullness of the gospel, what great clarifications? What is found, theologically, that is not in the Bible.My feeling is that it can be completely bypassed which I think the RLDS are doing, the Bible and the rest of your mormon doctrine should be enough as this work adds nothing.I don't think you understand what 'fullness' means. You seem to be adhering to the poor english skills of church critics. What, for example, is the fullness of being physically active? It reiterates the importance of baptism, the role of works, the reason why Jesus is referred to as both the father and the son, the difference between the law of moses and the covenants of the Old testament, the target audience of the sermon on the mount, the reason for and importance of the fall of Adam, clarification on the ideal form of government, and a host of other teachings. The Doctrine and Covenants certainly expands on many of these teachings, but the Book of Mormon resolves many of the doctrinal conflicts between protestants and the rest of Christianity. According to your philosophy we should get rid of a number of books in the bible because they do not have unique teachings found elsewhere. The doctrine is often subtle and will be missed with a superficial reading, but it is in fact full of precepts. 2
Freedom Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 This article has some more examples of critical doctrines found in the Book of Mormon. http://www.mormonwiki.com/Book_of_Mormon#Major_Teachings_of_the_Book_of_Mormon 3
Bart Burk Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Was there any need for the Book of Mormon?Wouldn't the Book of Mormon just be part of God's plan? How can you quarrel with that -- God must believe we need it. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 The people who wrote it thought so.The people who have been converted to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ because of it think so.http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng 3
Yep Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Easy answer. How many witnesses are needed for everything? The Bible is the record of the Lord's people in Israel, it is one witness. Look up, in the Bible, the necessary number of witnesses for anything. It is always 2 or more. It is never single. 1
3DOP Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) The Book of Mormon offers critical evidence of the authority that Latter-day Saints attach to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors. I don't know how Mormons could have reasonably claimed to know about the history of Christ in America without the Book of Mormon or something similar. It seems to me that even if it is similar to many of the other Scriptures in some places, especially the Book of Isaiah, there are significant texts that obviously add to the 66 Book Protestant Bible and helps to clarify difference between LDS teaching and that of other Christians.It is as easy to understand why the LDS see a need to add the Book of Mormon to their Bibles as it is easy to see why Protestants delete Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom literature, and the Maccabees. I am not persuaded of the Book of Mormon, but if I had to choose between adding the Book of Mormon or deleting the other mentioned Scriptures, I think I'd lean toward adding the Book of Mormon. Edited January 27, 2013 by 3DOP 4
rodheadlee Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Was there any need for the Book of Mormon?Of course, it's a Second Witness of Christ, it also tells the story of Jesus Christ coming to America.. Was there any need ofr Mark to tell the same story as Matthew and Luke in the NT? 2
volgadon Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 The Book of Mormon offers critical evidence of the authority that Latter-day Saints attach to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors. I don't know how Mormons could have reasonably claimed to know about the history of Christ in America without the Book of Mormon or something similar. It seems to me that even if it is similar to many of the other Scriptures in some places, especially the Book of Isaiah, there are significant texts that obviously add to the 66 Book Protestant Bible and helps to clarify difference between LDS teaching and that of other Christians.It is as easy to understand why the LDS see a need to add the Book of Mormon to their Bibles as it is easy to see why Protestants delete Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom literature, and the Maccabees. I am not persuaded of the Book of Mormon, but if I had to choose between adding the Book of Mormon or deleting the other mentioned Scriptures, I think I'd lean toward adding the Book of Mormon.Can't say fairer than that.
3DOP Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Okay. I've got a huge doctrine that the Book of Mormon clears up.The 66 Book Bible People can't agree about whether those books teach infant baptism or not. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans think the short Bible allows infant baptism while Baptists and most community churches says it doesn't. Those who believe the Book of Mormon, of whatever offshoot, could never ever wonder about infant baptism anymore. If for no other reason, it seems to me like Protestants could wish for some more revelation to clear up such a divisive question. 4
Recommended Posts