Is The Book Of Mormon Really The Keystone Of Our Religion?

[JarMan]

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon? Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

[Robert F. Smith]

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon?

A good indication of what the LDS Church would be like without the Book of Mormon can be gained by examining what has happened to the RLDS Church as it made the transition to the Community of Christ. You are seeing a veritable collapse.

Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

I know of no one who claims that there are any doctrines "found exclusively in the Book of Mormon," nor need there be -- since the Book of Mormon is supposed to be Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Indeed, I know of no book on Earth which contains exclusive doctrines. There is literally "nothing new under the sun." However, I would appreciate any new information along those lines which someone might care to offer.

[Robert F. Smith]

However, you may want to consider the special impact of the Book of Mormon in various areas of doctrine:

SPECIAL IMPACT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

• calendar & chronology (predictive and tight synchronisms from Zedekiah to birth and death of Jesus)

• archeological nature and chronological sequence of major New World civilizations in the context of actual diffusion well correlated with Book of Mormon

• Egypticity of ancient preexilic Israel (language of Bronze Plates, primary source of weights & measures, etc.; Alma 11)

• Jewish festivals and liturgy (Alma 31)

• Sitz im Leben des Tempels: esoteric temple rites and discourses

• pre-exilic Israelite religion, unaffected by Deuteronomistic reforms

• pre-exilic Israelite theology of resurrection and immortality

• separate nature/personhood of God the Father and Jesus Christ (III Nephi 15:15-24, 19:13-28)

• material spirituality (spirit body) of pre-mortal Jesus, in whose image mortal humans are made (Ether 3:6-19; cf. Alma 18:18-28, 22:8-12)

• reality of Suffering Servant motif in Isaiah 53, Qumran, and the NT

• second witness of Christ (II Nephi 3:12, 11:1-8, III Nephi)

• true nature of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit (I Nephi 11:1-11)

• council in heaven (II Ne 16, 24:12-14)

• detailed divine foreknowledge and foreordination (I Nephi 9:5-6, 14:27, 19:3, 21:1, II Ne 25:19, Words of Mormon 6-7, Mosiah 3:8, Alma 13:3)

• premortal nature of humans (II Nephi 9:38, Alma 42:23)

• post-mortal disposition of the spirits of the righteous (Alma 40:11-12)

• apotheosis: godhood for humans (III Nephi 28:10)

• prophetic call motif (Lehi, Nephi, Alma, etc.)

• self-conscious, prophetic interpretation (II Nephi 3:7-19, and 27:)

• true nature of OT prophecy and continuing revelation in an open canon

• some "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible, notably "covenants" (I Nephi 13:26)

• ancient treaty-covenant pattern (King Benjamin’s Speech, Mosiah 2 - 5)

• primacy of extended family, rather than nuclear family (Mosiah 2:5)

• extraordinary lessons on non-violence / pacifism (Alma 24 - 43)

• equality of all before God (II Nephi 26:33)

• illegitimacy of “good-guy”-“bad-guy” distinctions (“Nephite Disease”) along with fallacy of “all is well in Zion,” and of piety-prosperity myth (II Nephi 28:21-25, Mosiah 9 - 21, Helaman 12:1-2)

• valid, non-circular epistemologies taught (Alma 32, 36, Ether 4:11, 5:3, Moroni 10:4-5)

• problem of evil (theodicy) dealt with via Law of Opposition in All Things and Free Agency (II Ne 2, Alma 42:16)

A couple of years ago on this board, Rivers said that "Personally, my favorite teaching in the Book of Mormon is that of the 'fortunate fall.' I love the concept that our mortality is all part of God's plan rather than a curse."

You can add your own favorites, but are any of them original or unique to the Book of Mormon?

Edited July 21, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[teddyaware]

However, you may want to consider the special impact of the Book of Mormon in various areas of doctrine:

SPECIAL IMPACT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

• calendar & chronology (predictive and tight synchronisms from Zedekiah to birth and death of Jesus)

• archeological nature and chronological sequence of major New World civilizations in the context of actual diffusion well correlated with Book of Mormon

• Egypticity of ancient preexilic Israel (language of Bronze Plates, primary source of weights & measures, etc.; Alma 11)

• Jewish festivals and liturgy (Alma 31)

• Sitz im Leben des Tempels: esoteric temple rites and discourses

• pre-exilic Israelite religion, unaffected by Deuteronomistic reforms

• pre-exilic Israelite theology of resurrection and immortality

• separate nature/personhood of God the Father and Jesus Christ (III Nephi 15:15-24, 19:13-28)

• material spirituality (spirit body) of pre-mortal Jesus, in whose image mortal humans are made (Ether 3:6-19; cf. Alma 18:18-28, 22:8-12)

• reality of Suffering Servant motif in Isaiah 53, Qumran, and the NT

• second witness of Christ (II Nephi 3:12, 11:1-8, III Nephi)

• true nature of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit (I Nephi 11:1-11)

• council in heaven (II Ne 16, 24:12-14)

• detailed divine foreknowledge and foreordination (I Nephi 9:5-6, 14:27, 19:3, 21:1, II Ne 25:19, Words of Mormon 6-7, Mosiah 3:8, Alma 13:3)

• premortal nature of humans (II Nephi 9:38, Alma 42:23)

• post-mortal disposition of the spirits of the righteous (Alma 40:11-12)

• apotheosis: godhood for humans (III Nephi 28:10)

• prophetic call motif (Lehi, Nephi, Alma, etc.)

• self-conscious, prophetic interpretation (II Nephi 3:7-19, and 27:)

• true nature of OT prophecy and continuing revelation in an open canon

• some "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible, notably "covenants" (I Nephi 13:26)

• ancient treaty-covenant pattern (King Benjamin’s Speech, Mosiah 2 - 5)

• primacy of extended family, rather than nuclear family (Mosiah 2:5)

• extraordinary lessons on non-violence / pacifism (Alma 24 - 43)

• equality of all before God (II Nephi 26:33)

• illegitimacy of “good-guy”-“bad-guy” distinctions (“Nephite Disease”) along with fallacy of “all is well in Zion,” and of piety-prosperity myth (II Nephi 28:21-25, Mosiah 9 - 21, Helaman 12:1-2)

• valid, non-circular epistemologies taught (Alma 32, 36, Ether 4:11, 5:3, Moroni 10:4-5)

• problem of evil (theodicy) dealt with via Law of Opposition in All Things and Free Agency (II Ne 2, Alma 42:16)

A couple of years ago on this board, Rivers said that "Personally, my favorite teaching in the Book of Mormon is that of the 'fortunate fall.' I love the concept that our mortality is all part of God's plan rather than a curse."

You can add your own favorites, but are any of them original or unique to the Book of Mormon?

Really good stuff! For JarMan's sake, I include below a portion of President Ezra Taft Benson's October 1986 General Conference address, wherein he explains the three primary reasons why he called the Book of Mormon "the keystone of our religion:"

"There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ (see title page of the Book of Mormon).

The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.

Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."

Edited July 21, 2013 by teddyaware

[JarMan]

A good indication of what the LDS Church would be like without the Book of Mormon can be gained by examining what has happened to the RLDS Church as it made the transition to the Community of Christ. You are seeing a veritable collapse.

Have they abandoned the Book of Mormon? i thought they just don't accept it literally.

[JarMan]

The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ (see title page of the Book of Mormon).

The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.

The Bible already has the fulness of the gospel. This description is essentially saying that the Book of Mormon is window-dressing for the Bible.

Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."

Does the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon really prove the truthfulness of the church? Does the truthfulness of the Bible prove the truthfulness of Catholicism?

[canard78]

Impressive list Robert. I particularly agree with the point about the lessons on the 'fortunate fall.' In some ways I think Mormon theology hinges on the notion of the departure all of us make from 'Eden' being an ascent that is freely chosen not imposed unwillingly. Everything else then flows out from there.

On a practical note, the Book of Mormon is a keystone for me because if discredited everything else would fall. Despite the struggles I've had with my faith over last 18 months or so, the Book of Mormon remains the key (stone) reason I have stayed.

It is too tangible to dismiss and the story of its origin too impressive to ignore. It remains a book without equal.

If Joseph had instead only produced the D&C & PoGP, even though the majority of Mormon doctrine is also (or only) in there, I'd probably be gone already. The D&C was built over the course of 15 years, was heavily modified and is usually a needs based response to resolving an issue or question (from a dispute with Oliver over John the Beloved to solving Emma's tobacco spittle angst).

[Questing Beast]

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon? Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

The closest to exclusive doctrine in the BoM is the description of God as Father and Son, in Mosiah 15. Standing alone, the BoM makes God out to be a single being with dual natures, or manifestations; as God the Father, or the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and because of the flesh he becomes the Son of God....

[Robert F. Smith]

Have they abandoned the Book of Mormon? i thought they just don't accept it literally.

They have not formally abandoned it, but there is a virtual abandonment. This process of doubting the historicity of the BofM among RLDS intelligentsia is part of a long developmental history which also includes viewing the Bible as filled with extraordinary accounts which are not to be given historical status or credibility.

[Robert F. Smith]

The closest to exclusive doctrine in the BoM is the description of God as Father and Son, in Mosiah 15. Standing alone, the BoM makes God out to be a single being with dual natures, or manifestations; as God the Father, or the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and because of the flesh he becomes the Son of God....

Which appears to be equally true of the NT, and NT theologians have great difficulty providing a coherent explanation of how that might be so. As usual, Platonism and neo-Platonism are brought in to help, and end up creating even greater chaos.

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................

.............solving Emma's tobacco spittle angst).

[Questing Beast]

Which appears to be equally true of the NT, and NT theologians have great difficulty providing a coherent explanation of how that might be so. As usual, Platonism and neo-Platonism are brought in to help, and end up creating even greater chaos.

Yes, one substance/essence, three Beings, the Trinity. Muddle, or mystery, if you prefer. But I thought the OP question was relating to LDS scriptures, and nowhere else but the BoM says that God is one person going by three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit....

[Tacenda]

The closest to exclusive doctrine in the BoM is the description of God as Father and Son, in Mosiah 15. Standing alone, the BoM makes God out to be a single being with dual natures, or manifestations; as God the Father, or the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and because of the flesh he becomes the Son of God....

This is what I've been saying, but people on this board twist it to mean other things, trying to get around this fact.

[Kevin Christensen]

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon? Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

I'm very fond it the Book of Mormon, in terms of both the production as the defining event in our history, far more so than the First Vision, which actually had a lot of company. One favorite point to mention, the Bible has remarkably little about the afterlife.

The Book of Mormon turns out to be better than expected.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=16

Robert mentioned Pre-exilic religion, which is one of my favorite topics.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

Questing Beast, on 21 July 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

The closest to exclusive doctrine in the BoM is the description of God as Father and Son, in Mosiah 15. Standing alone, the BoM makes God out to be a single being with dual natures, or manifestations; as God the Father, or the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and because of the flesh he becomes the Son of God....

Robert F. Smith said:

Which appears to be equally true of the NT, and NT theologians have great difficulty providing a coherent explanation of how that might be so. As usual, Platonism and neo-Platonism are brought in to help, and end up creating even greater chaos.

\

Yes, one substance/essence, three Beings, the Trinity. Muddle, or mystery, if you prefer. But I thought the OP question was relating to LDS scriptures, and nowhere else but the BoM says that God is one person going by three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit....

First you had two, now you have three, Beast. Mayhap one is your undistributed "muddle" term.

It does depend on how you prefer to take John 10:30, "I and my Father are one"; 10:38, "the Father is in me, and I in him," etc. (see also 5:19-22, 14:10-11, 17:11,21-22). For there is considerable ambiguity in use of terms or titles of deity in the NT, such that confusion has in fact resulted among the best scholars: The New Jerusalem Bible, for example, in its note i to II Timothy 1:2,18, finds that "'Lord' can be taken in either case as a reference either to the Father or to the Son." This does not even get into the nature of the debate on the early identity of ‘El and Yahweh and where and how they came to be cross-identified, which is seen by some scholars to be a developmental process beginning in early Canaanite times (Fisher & Rummel, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels, III, IV 2).

Whatever the case, this sort of thing has triggered a long-lasting trinitarian debate which still rages, and your use of terms such as "one substance/essence, three Beings, the Trinity," etc., indicates how heavily influenced you are by the creedal formulations of the fourth & fifth centuries A.D. The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a very close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than "triadic coordination" rather than a divine unity of three-in-one,^[1] which some take to be tritheism.

That being said, early Christian views should first be analyzed in the context of mainstream Jewish as well as popular pagan religious language of the day. Some of that is available in the following works:

Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM, 1970/ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981);

Robert M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Univ. of Virginia, 1966);

Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Library of Early Christianity 1 (Phila.: Westminster, 1986).

Paula Fredriksen, “Gods and the One God,” Bible Review, XIX/1 (Feb 2003), 49.

Some NT texts distinguish between Father & Son (Rom 8:31-34, I Cor 11:3, 15:20-28, II Cor 4:4-6), while others have them as a unity (Mat 11:27, Jn 10:30, 14:9-11, 20:28, Col 2:9, I Jn 5:20), and the BofM is equally multivalent, thus allowing readers to see what they want to see: In the Book of Mormon, it is not in fact possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head -- one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob 4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34). Formal language of cross-identification (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that "the will of the Son" is "swallowed up in the will of the Father" (Mosiah 15:7). In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.^[2]

Moreover, it makes no sense to see God in the Book of Mormon as "one person going by three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit," simply due to on the anthropomorphisms in the book: I Nephi 11:11, Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19.

^[1] J. Bassler, "God (NT)," in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1055.

^[2] Paulsen & Bruening, "The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi," in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon? Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon really is the "keystone". The Church couldn't continue without it.

Unless it had to. Then it could.

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Have they abandoned the Book of Mormon? i thought they just don't accept it literally.

With all due respect, the Community of Christ's problems are much bigger than whether or not they believe in a literally historical Book of Mormon.

And surveying the religious landscape, the data would indicate that a religion's attitude towards the Book of Mormon is remarkably irrelevant to its prosperity or survival.

[Buzzard]

I'm not nearly as smart or scholarly as most of you on this board, but canard78 put it best, though in the negative.

The Book of Mormon is the "proof" of Joseph Smith's divine calling. Lots of people through the ages have had a little talk with deity and/or his representatives. JS would be little different from all of them except for the BOM.

It exists, and JS has a story about how he got it. An honest seeker cannot just wish it away, he or she must deal with the BOM before dismissing the church. If the BOM is true and the story about how it came to be is the truth, then what does it matter if JS took additional wives, or Paiutes assisted (or not) at the MMM. The BOM is true, the work is. The BOM is not, then this organization is at naught.

It really is that simple, and the bridge of the church stays erect or collapses based on that truth.

[Thinking]

If the Book of Mormon is true, it is not necessarily true the the current LDS Church is God's church. After Joseph's death there was a split. If you believe that Brigham Young was Joseph's true successor, you still have all the breakaway churches that still practice polygamy who claim that the current LDS Church is in apostasy and they are following the true path. The Book of Mormon being true doesn't solve any of the succession issues.

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, on 21 July 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

The closest to exclusive doctrine in the BoM is the description of God as Father and Son, in Mosiah 15. Standing alone, the BoM makes God out to be a single being with dual natures, or manifestations; as God the Father, or the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, and because of the flesh he becomes the Son of God....

\

First you had two, now you have three, Beast. Mayhap one is your undistributed "muddle" term.

It does depend on how you prefer to take John 10:30, "I and my Father are one"; 10:38, "the Father is in me, and I in him," etc. (see also 5:19-22, 14:10-11, 17:11,21-22). For there is considerable ambiguity in use of terms or titles of deity in the NT, such that confusion has in fact resulted among the best scholars: The New Jerusalem Bible, for example, in its note i to II Timothy 1:2,18, finds that "'Lord' can be taken in either case as a reference either to the Father or to the Son." This does not even get into the nature of the debate on the early identity of ‘El and Yahweh and where and how they came to be cross-identified, which is seen by some scholars to be a developmental process beginning in early Canaanite times (Fisher & Rummel, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels, III, IV 2).

Whatever the case, this sort of thing has triggered a long-lasting trinitarian debate which still rages, and your use of terms such as "one substance/essence, three Beings, the Trinity," etc., indicates how heavily influenced you are by the creedal formulations of the fourth & fifth centuries A.D. The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a very close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than "triadic coordination" rather than a divine unity of three-in-one,^[1] which some take to be tritheism.

That being said, early Christian views should first be analyzed in the context of mainstream Jewish as well as popular pagan religious language of the day. Some of that is available in the following works:

Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM, 1970/ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981);

Robert M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Univ. of Virginia, 1966);

Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Library of Early Christianity 1 (Phila.: Westminster, 1986).

Paula Fredriksen, “Gods and the One God,” Bible Review, XIX/1 (Feb 2003), 49.

Some NT texts distinguish between Father & Son (Rom 8:31-34, I Cor 11:3, 15:20-28, II Cor 4:4-6), while others have them as a unity (Mat 11:27, Jn 10:30, 14:9-11, 20:28, Col 2:9, I Jn 5:20), and the BofM is equally multivalent, thus allowing readers to see what they want to see: In the Book of Mormon, it is not in fact possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head -- one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob 4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34). Formal language of cross-identification (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that "the will of the Son" is "swallowed up in the will of the Father" (Mosiah 15:7). In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.^[2]

Moreover, it makes no sense to see God in the Book of Mormon as "one person going by three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit," simply due to on the anthropomorphisms in the book: I Nephi 11:11, Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19.

^[1] J. Bassler, "God (NT)," in D. Freedman, ed., ABD, II:1055.

^[2] Paulsen & Bruening, "The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi," in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233.

Robert, you are so steeped in your "geek" interest in religion, the history, the scholarship, that you seem to forget that the average man/woman in the streets/pews has neither the capacity nor the level of interest that you do, or even that I do. And my level of interest in the scholarly aspects is vastly short of yours!

Do you really expect, that God expects, each person to have to study all of this "out in your mind", before God will finally be revealed clearly?

The point is, God to Abinadi is anything but the same being that Mormons worship today. You can assert that it is "metaphorical" all you like.

Why do you use German for "Godhead"?

The very existence of Trinity doctrines in all their varieties, going back to the 3rd and 4th centuries, emphasizes how confused all of usen are because of the ambiguity and inconsistency of the lingos employed. The passage of time and increasing debates do not help!

I think that if one holds the view that there literally is ONE GOD, and that is Existence (by any other name the same), responsible for everything that enters creation, then we have a concept where each one of us, and the entire world of humans, is "God" manifesting through creation. That is a broad, and yet accurate enough, concept to take in the lot. There cannot be any finite statement about the nature of "God" that defines anymore than a single aspect of "God". Saying that "God Is a Man" is true, so is saying that God Is a woman, or that tree, or this planet, or universe, etc....

[Questing Beast]

If the Book of Mormon is true, it is not necessarily true the the current LDS Church is God's church. After Joseph's death there was a split. If you believe that Brigham Young was Joseph's true successor, you still have all the breakaway churches that still practice polygamy who claim that the current LDS Church is in apostasy and they are following the true path. The Book of Mormon being true doesn't solve any of the succession issues.

Welcome to the mess of religious history. Primitive Christianity was at least this messy long ago. And here we are.

What are the chances that JS's religious world view was the accurate one? God's revelations confirmed what JS believed. He already saw that the churches of his corner of the earth did not have a "Godly walk", they had all departed from the way, etc. He didn't need to ask which one to join, in 1832, when he wrote his only penned history of his religious quest, he knew they were not right; he only needed to know what God expected of him, and he got that answer in the form of the "the Lord of glory" appearing to him. Then came angelic ministers and the BoM. Then the Church organized a year later. Then the story got faster, deeper and very, very interesting, and complicated, and messy. And here we are.

The BoM doesn't have to be more than scripture. Literal details of a historical nature don't have to be anymore real than those in the Bible. And as far as I can tell, the Bible is anything but an intentional history book. It is a religious world view of the "Hebrews" at the center of their world. If you believe that JS was given the BoM by God, that should suffice.

I don't happen to believe that JS received an exclusively true religion from God. I believe that "God" works within all religions, and there never was a singular religion that excluded the rest....

[Kenngo1969]

It's not so much the doctrine in the Book of Mormon that makes it the keystone of our religion, but rather the fact that Joseph Smith's prophetic calling stands or falls on it. If it's a nineteenth-century forgery, then Joseph Smith was a charlatan. If, instead, it is the authentically-ancient record it claims to be, then Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. My $0.02.

[JarMan]

What I think I am understanding from this discussion is that, doctrinally, the D&C is really the keystone of Mormonism. (After all, that's where we find out about temple ordinances, the organization of the leadership of the church, details on the priesthood, and the nature of the godhead, just to name a few.) The Book of Mormon is essentially a "bridge" that gets us to Joseph Smith and, therefore, to the D&C.

But what if the Book of Mormon as a "bridge" to the rest of the church is a "bridge too far"? I accept the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, having received a spiritual witness of it. But I don't see how this requires me to accept Mormonism as a whole any more than accepting the truthfulness of the Bible requires me to accept Catholicism as a whole. (I'm not saying I reject Mormonism, either. Only that the "bridge" theory seems tenuous to me.)

[canard78]

If the Book of Mormon is true, it is not necessarily true the the current LDS Church is God's church. After Joseph's death there was a split. If you believe that Brigham Young was Joseph's true successor, you still have all the breakaway churches that still practice polygamy who claim that the current LDS Church is in apostasy and they are following the true path. The Book of Mormon being true doesn't solve any of the succession issues.

I'd agree that Joseph's successors can't take the same evidence from the Book of Mormon's production. The belief that "if the BoM is true then everything else about the church must be" no longer works for me (it used to, and that was the way I was taught to believe it). The Book of Mormon remains me religious key stone, but I don't accept every other teaching of the church because of that conviction.

Our leaders teach that Mohammad, Buddha and Confucius were all inspired prophets/teachers. But we don't teach that everything that comes out of Islam/Buddhism/Confucianism was inspired. The same could be true of our church.

Perhaps God gifts scripture and philosophy from time to time to different cultures and then let's us work it out from there.

[Thinking]

But what if the Book of Mormon as a "bridge" to the rest of the church is a "bridge too far"? I accept the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, having received a spiritual witness of it. But I don't see how this requires me to accept Mormonism as a whole any more than accepting the truthfulness of the Bible requires me to accept Catholicism as a whole. (I'm not saying I reject Mormonism, either. Only that the "bridge" theory seems tenuous to me.)

I was trained as a missionary to use this "bridge" connection from the Book of Mormon to the current LDS Church.

Book of Mormon is true. → Joseph Smith is a prophet. → Joseph restored the true church of Jesus Christ. → The LDS Church is that true church.