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

[Avatar4321]

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 teaches the Doctrine of Christ more clearly than any other volume of scripture. The Doctrine of Christ is essential for the Church to exist.

It also teaches that Revelation continues.

[canard78]

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.)

I think this is a fair observation. Even though many other religions also have scripture and even though our theology teaches there are at least 10 other tribes to bring theres at some point, we assume that because we have credible scripture we become the only true church.

When you put it like that it does seem a bridge too far.

[Buzzard]

If the founder of the Catholic church (Constantine?) would have claimed the New Testament was delivered to him by an angel, then the truthfullness of the bible would indeed be the test for accepting that religion. But no such claim exists. I suppose the Koran is a better parallel, and if I judged the Koran to be scripture, then I should be a Muslim. But I don't so I'm not.

But if the BOM is scripture, I guess the only choice to make is between the LDS church and...the Temple Lot folks? The CofC has given up all claims of divine authority and Warren Jeffs is a nut case.

[ChristKnight]

If the founder of the Catholic church (Constantine?) would have claimed the New Testament was delivered to him by an angel, then the truthfullness of the bible would indeed be the test for accepting that religion. But no such claim exists.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

[theplains]

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

• Jewish festivals and liturgy (Alma 31)

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

Where does Alma 31 mention any of the feast days? The Book of Mormon doesn't

even mention 'passover'.

And what is the true nature of the Holy Ghost? Is he the spirit child of heavenly

parents, some created being who somehow progressed into becoming a God, or

is he a being who was God before Joseph Smith's version of "a Heavenly Father

who was once a man who became a God"?

Thanks,

Jim

[Stone holm]

What makes us peculiar from other Christians is what is contained in the D & C, not what is in the Book of Mormon. My approach to discussing the assertion that it is the keystone of our religion is more that it is a bridge at the middle of an arch. The Old Testament is a scripture that sometimes leaves you with a bad impression of God, however, if you read the Book of Mormon and then think of what might have been the real cause and meaning of some of the things which sort of "jangle" in the Old Testament then you can see the consistency of the Old and New Testaments not the seemingly harsh difference in the way God is portrayed between the two.

[3DOP]

If the founder of the Catholic church (Constantine?) would have claimed the New Testament was delivered to him by an angel, then the truthfullness of the bible would indeed be the test for accepting that religion. But no such claim exists. I suppose the Koran is a better parallel, and if I judged the Koran to be scripture, then I should be a Muslim. But I don't so I'm not.

But if the BOM is scripture, I guess the only choice to make is between the LDS church and...the Temple Lot folks? The CofC has given up all claims of divine authority and Warren Jeffs is a nut case.

Constantine didn't say the following:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority...

---Against Heresies, 3:3:2

Well over a century before Constantine, St. Irenaeus affirmed the need to agree with the "universally known Church founded and organized at Rome". Why? "On account of its preeminent authority". The assertion that the Catholic Church was "founded" by some politician a century and a half later seems absurd in light of the explicit words of the bishop of Lyons, a Church Father respected and reknowned for maintaining the apostolic tradition that was believed from the beginning.

3DOP

PS: On further reflection, I must note that a "?" was placed by the "assertion" that Constantine might have founded the Catholic Church. My apologies, Buzzard, for having asserted that you asserted something with which I disagree.

Edited July 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Yeah. Me neither. Maybe Constantine founded Mormonism???

[canard78]

Yeah. Me neither. Maybe Constantine founded Mormonism???

I was in Church the other day and a long in the tooth High priest said "I thought Lorenzo Snow introduced tithing. I didn't realise it existed before then."

[3DOP]

I was in Church the other day and a long in the tooth High priest said "I thought Lorenzo Snow introduced tithing. I didn't realise it existed before then."

Heh. I find myself pulling for those "long in the tooth" whether we are old priests, old ballplayers, or old musicians, or old truck drivers like me. Sometimes we don't know that we are the joke. But hopefully we still know how to be funny on purpose too!

3DOP

Edited July 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[JarMan]

If the founder of the Catholic church (Constantine?) would have claimed the New Testament was delivered to him by an angel, then the truthfullness of the bible would indeed be the test for accepting that religion. But no such claim exists. I suppose the Koran is a better parallel, and if I judged the Koran to be scripture, then I should be a Muslim. But I don't so I'm not.

Catholics claim a direct line from Christ through their first pope, Peter. How is that claim any less than the LDS claims of angelic visitations?

But if the BOM is scripture, I guess the only choice to make is between the LDS church and...the Temple Lot folks? The CofC has given up all claims of divine authority and Warren Jeffs is a nut case.

Is that all the choices you can think of? There are dozens of organized churches that claim the Book of Mormon as divine scripture. I imagine there are also many individuals who accept the Book of Mormon who don't identify officially with any organized church.

[JarMan]

The Book of Mormon teaches the Doctrine of Christ more clearly than any other volume of scripture. The Doctrine of Christ is essential for the Church to exist.

I disagree that it teaches the Doctrine of Christ more clearly than the New Testament. The two are approximately equal in my estimation. And there are many things regarding Christ that are taught in the D&C and Pearl of Great Price that are absent from the Book of Mormon.

It also teaches that Revelation continues.

Hmmm. . . I'm trying to think of what you're referring to, here. I'm kinda slow, so help me out here.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.)

Good point.

And an interesting question: Is the Book of Mormon "a bridge too far"? Sounds like a good title for a major article or book in which the author comes to grips with the hard issues. And it wouldn't really matter what his conclusion might be, only that he tackle the issues with respect and scholarship.

However, what are those hard issues, and what makes the whole "bridge" theory seem so "tenuous" to you?

[JarMan]

Good point.

And an interesting question: Is the Book of Mormon "a bridge too far"? Sounds like a good title for a major article or book in which the author comes to grips with the hard issues. And it wouldn't really matter what his conclusion might be, only that he tackle the issues with respect and scholarship.

However, what are those hard issues, and what makes the whole "bridge" theory seem so "tenuous" to you?

I don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon. In fact, I love the Book of Mormon. But then I compare the Book of Mormon to the Mormon Church and I feel like there's been a bait and switch. There's all this baggage with the church. And I don't mean the troubling aspects of church history. I mean all of these doctrines that aren't in the Book of Mormon that show up elsewhere: the nature of the priesthood, the saving ordinances, temple work for the dead, polygamy, the law of consecration, eternal families, the word of wisdom, home teaching.

If I was a new member who'd been converted by reading the Book of Mormon, I'd feel like I entered a wormhole and ended up feeding cheerios to runny-nosed kids in the nursery. As it is, I'm a life-long member but I feel like the world of meetings, meetings, home teaching, activities and meetings exists in a different universe than the simple doctrines of the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, the scouts are trying to finish their eagle projects, the relief society sisters are happily making center pieces, and the priesthood leaders are absolutely convinced that if we can boost home teaching numbers, that not only will their souls as quorum leaders be saved, but the souls of both the home teachers and the home teachees will have a decent chance, as well.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon. In fact, I love the Book of Mormon. But then I compare the Book of Mormon to the Mormon Church and I feel like there's been a bait and switch. There's all this baggage with the church. And I don't mean the troubling aspects of church history. I mean all of these doctrines that aren't in the Book of Mormon that show up elsewhere: the nature of the priesthood, the saving ordinances, temple work for the dead, polygamy, the law of consecration, eternal families, the word of wisdom, home teaching.

If I was a new member who'd been converted by reading the Book of Mormon, I'd feel like I entered a wormhole and ended up feeding cheerios to runny-nosed kids in the nursery. As it is, I'm a life-long member but I feel like the world of meetings, meetings, home teaching, activities and meetings exists in a different universe than the simple doctrines of the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, the scouts are trying to finish their eagle projects, the relief society sisters are happily making center pieces, and the priesthood leaders are absolutely convinced that if we can boost home teaching numbers, that not only will their souls as quorum leaders be saved, but the souls of both the home teachers and the home teachees will have a decent chance, as well.

Brother, you need a breather. A nice long vacation without a cellphone. You need to decompress, and only you know how that can be done in your case.

Go on a service mission, if you are retired or can take time off without suffering financially.

Pick up and move. Get a new job in another part of the country, then sell the house.

Do something. A beau geste. Anything.

[teddyaware]

I don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon. In fact, I love the Book of Mormon. But then I compare the Book of Mormon to the Mormon Church and I feel like there's been a bait and switch. There's all this baggage with the church. And I don't mean the troubling aspects of church history. I mean all of these doctrines that aren't in the Book of Mormon that show up elsewhere: the nature of the priesthood, the saving ordinances, temple work for the dead, polygamy, the law of consecration, eternal families, the word of wisdom, home teaching.

If I was a new member who'd been converted by reading the Book of Mormon, I'd feel like I entered a wormhole and ended up feeding cheerios to runny-nosed kids in the nursery. As it is, I'm a life-long member but I feel like the world of meetings, meetings, home teaching, activities and meetings exists in a different universe than the simple doctrines of the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, the scouts are trying to finish their eagle projects, the relief society sisters are happily making center pieces, and the priesthood leaders are absolutely convinced that if we can boost home teaching numbers, that not only will their souls as quorum leaders be saved, but the souls of both the home teachers and the home teachees will have a decent chance, as well.

Rather than having to feed cheerios to runny-nosed little kids in the Church nursery room, why not spend that time feeding the ducks at the local duck pond? and rather than having all those endless, silly meetings to attend, wouldn't it be more meaningful to be able to just stay at home and watch your favorite TV show? and rather than doing all that annoying home and visiting teaching, wouldn't it be much better to spend that time shopping or doing chores? rather than wasting time at all those meaningless, unnecessary church activities, why not spend that time reading your favorite book or magazine? rather than the boy scouts spending so much of their valuable time working hard to finish their eagle badge service projects, wouldn't these young men be far better off if the could just go to their friend's house and play video games? instead of the Relief Society sisters spending valuable time making center pieces for the next ward dinner social, why not spend that time knitting an elegant doily for their own home's dining room table.

Life as a Latter-day Saint would be so much more meaningful if we could do what we want to do, rather than feeling obligated to spend so much time doing busywork.

Edited July 24, 2013 by teddyaware

[Buzzard]

Rather than having to feed cheerios to runny-nosed little kids in the Church nursery room, why not spend that time feeding the ducks at the local duck pond? and rather than having all those endless, silly meetings to attend, wouldn't it be more meaningful to be able to just stay at home and watch your favorite TV show? and rather than doing all that annoying home and visiting teaching, wouldn't it be much better to spend that time shopping or doing chores? rather than wasting time at all those meaningless, unnecessary church activities, why not spend that time reading your favorite book or magazine? rather than the boy scouts spending so much of their valuable time working hard to finish their eagle badge service projects, wouldn't these young men be far better off if the could just go to their friend's house and play video games? instead of the Relief Society sisters spending valuable time making center pieces for the next ward dinner social, why not spend that time knitting an elegant doily for their own home's dining room table.

Life as a Latter-day Saint would be so much more meaningful if we could do what we want to do, rather than feeling obligated to spend so much time doing busywork.

Well, you CAN do what you what you want. But some of those "useless activities" may not be so useless. So instead of flopping on the couch, what is wrong with planning with others in the ward to paint some rooms in a widows house? Instead of 13 year olds playing "Halo", they can be learning how to budget, increase their physical fitness, and get out into nature. Nothing wrong with knitting-my wife does it a lot-but nothing wrong with making new friends with a family who just moved into the area who you might not have met except at the ward social, and I have been very grateful for the help that home/visiting teachers have given my family during some tough times when yes, they could have been home reading People magazine.

I hope you get my point.

[JarMan]

Brother, you need a breather. A nice long vacation without a cellphone. You need to decompress, and only you know how that can be done in your case.

Go on a service mission, if you are retired or can take time off without suffering financially.

Pick up and move. Get a new job in another part of the country, then sell the house.

This IS me decompressing.

Do something. A beau geste. Anything.

No, thanks. I'm happily married. No beaus for me, bro.

[JarMan]

Rather than having to feed cheerios to runny-nosed little kids in the Church nursery room, why not spend that time feeding the ducks at the local duck pond? and rather than having all those endless, silly meetings to attend, wouldn't it be more meaningful to be able to just stay at home and watch your favorite TV show? and rather than doing all that annoying home and visiting teaching, wouldn't it be much better to spend that time shopping or doing chores? rather than wasting time at all those meaningless, unnecessary church activities, why not spend that time reading your favorite book or magazine? rather than the boy scouts spending so much of their valuable time working hard to finish their eagle badge service projects, wouldn't these young men be far better off if the could just go to their friend's house and play video games? instead of the Relief Society sisters spending valuable time making center pieces for the next ward dinner social, why not spend that time knitting an elegant doily for their own home's dining room table.

Life as a Latter-day Saint would be so much more meaningful if we could do what we want to do, rather than feeling obligated to spend so much time doing busywork.

Finally. Somebody who understands me.