Treating Lightly The Book Of Mormon

[Michael Sanders]

In Section 84 given in late September 1832 we read:

"And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received, which vanity and unbelief hath brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all; and they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom, otherwise there remaineth a scourge and a judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion; for, shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay."

Ezra Taft Benson remarked about the historical context of this heavenly rebuke by suggesting that it was in reference to missionaries who we're treating the record lightly.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/39166/Church-counseled-Dont-treat-lightly-the-Book-of-Mormon.html

Does anyone know the source for this assertion?

It seems that I once read a study showing that the Book of Mormon was used less than the Bible in public ministry by the early brethren, even Joseph. The idea that without the widespread availability of the book or a knowledge of its contents - that foundational stories of its miraculous coming forth or more general statements about its claims were what was being circulated.

Does anyone know the historical context of this portion of Section 84? Obviously the "former commandments" portion probably referred to the laws of consecration that we're being treated lightly by some in Zion and elsewhere.

Many of the newspapers of the day chronicled the preaching by many of the early missionaries concerning the Book of Mormon, it's origin and teachings. It seems to be front and center in their preaching. That doesn't seem to square with the notion of not remembering the book in their proselytizing endeavors.

What is the sitz im liben of this revelation? How was the Book of Mormon being forgotten?

Mike

[AndyDnom]

when i was at the MTC there were 12 people in my district. Only 3 of us had read the whole book of mormon .

 

I have no clue why the other 9 felt they believed in mormonism strongly enough to give up 2 years for it, but haven't got the time or energy to read a 300 page book. They say more missionaries now have read the BOM , but I don't see how chopping off one year of experience on the earth is going to make that number go up.

 

It's an odd part of mormon culture though: mormons who would die for their religion, who would fight someone that would talk bad about its leaders, give up 2 years of life, ~25 years of sex, and a lifetime of alcohol for the church. But they can't take the time to read the book of mormon. It's strange.

[Duncan]

there was an article by Noel Reynolds that you may find interesting

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6565

[Robert F. Smith]

when i was at the MTC there were 12 people in my district. Only 3 of us had read the whole book of mormon .

 

I have no clue why the other 9 felt they believed in mormonism strongly enough to give up 2 years for it, but haven't got the time or energy to read a 300 page book. They say more missionaries now have read the BOM , but I don't see how chopping off one year of experience on the earth is going to make that number go up.

Jews, Christians (and Mormons), Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims are generally acculturated to the notion of being members of a particular faith. As they are raised in that faith, they identify with it, without necessarily having read the entire corpus of Holy Scripture. Don't underestimate the strength of that self-identification.

 

It's an odd part of mormon culture though: mormons who would die for their religion, who would fight someone that would talk bad about its leaders, give up 2 years of life, ~25 years of sex, and a lifetime of alcohol for the church. But they can't take the time to read the book of mormon. It's strange.

Not many Mormons I know will go fist city when someone makes a disparaging remark about their leaders, and the 2 years you speak of is often more of an initiation into manhood than a giving up of something. As to giving up ~25 years of (wild?) sex, it is actually true that married sex is more frequent and more satisfying than the imaginary playboy world of loose sex with loose women -- aside from the lack of STDs, enraged husbands, and a guilty conscience.

Booze and other drugs may give momentary pleasure, but are powerfully addictive, and destroy lives without any qualm. In other words, those faithful young missionaries are giving up nothing but heartache and mutually assured destruction. They have made the better, happier choice.

[Palerider]

In Section 84 given in late September 1832 we read:

"And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received, which vanity and unbelief hath brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all; and they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom, otherwise there remaineth a scourge and a judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion; for, shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay."

Ezra Taft Benson remarked about the historical context of this heavenly rebuke by suggesting that it was in reference to missionaries who we're treating the record lightly.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/39166/Church-counseled-Dont-treat-lightly-the-Book-of-Mormon.html

Does anyone know the source for this assertion?

It seems that I once read a study showing that the Book of Mormon was used less than the Bible in public ministry by the early brethren, even Joseph. The idea that without the widespread availability of the book or a knowledge of its contents - that foundational stories of its miraculous coming forth or more general statements about its claims were what was being circulated.

Does anyone know the historical context of this portion of Section 84? Obviously the "former commandments" portion probably referred to the laws of consecration that we're being treated lightly by some in Zion and elsewhere.

Many of the newspapers of the day chronicled the preaching by many of the early missionaries concerning the Book of Mormon, it's origin and teachings. It seems to be front and center in their preaching. That doesn't seem to square with the notion of not remembering the book in their proselytizing endeavors.

What is the sitz im liben of this revelation? How was the Book of Mormon being forgotten?

Mike

 

 

I think part of the B of M's problem is that it's ........well, boring....

 

The first time I tried to read it before my mission, it came to pass, that I fell into a deep slumber.

 

And then it came to pass again and again and again that I fell into a deep slumber while trying to read it.

 

Finally I decided to read the New Testament and it came to pass that I.........

 

Sorry, I can't treat this lightly. The New Testament is where I gained my testimony of the Savior and His great sacrifice on our behalf. And it captivated me in a way that no other book has had the capacity to do. I still read it nearly every morning. There is nothing out there that even comes close.

[Damien the Leper]

Mosiah is the only book that does it for me in the BoM. 1 & 2 Nephi and Alma are the worst books.

[Palerider]

Oh, by the way.

 

When I saw "sitzim liben" in your post I admit I was unfamiliar with the phrase so (wanting to translate) I went outside and grabbed a peculiar looking stone and dropped it in my fur hat (snowing right now) and it began to glow with this statement:

 

"Things are cloudy right now, try again later" 

 

But I did find it on dictionary.com  Thanks for expanding my vocabulary! 

[strappinglad]

The key to read the BoM for the first time is to skip over most of second Nephi. It's kind of like skipping over the last three of the first 5 books of Moses. Oh, you should come back to it after finishing the rest and there is lots to learn from it but it is tough slogging for a first time read. One also should try to read the BoM quickly, ie. within 2 weeks, at least once so the story flows better.

[janderich]

 How was the Book of Mormon being forgotten?

Mike

I would say, "How is the Book of Mormon being forgotten? President Benson often told us we were still under condemnation for treating lightly the things we have received. Are we safe to assume this condemnation has been removed? I believe Pres. Benson was not simply speaking of spreading the BofM itself around the world but of learning the message it is trying to tell us and doing according to what is written.

 

The BofM is trying to bring you and me as individuals to a higher state. In section 84 the Lord says we are under bondage of sin because we do not come unto him. I ask myself, have I come unto him? Or am I fooling myself like Ephraim's drunkards who stagger with pride like the drunk stagger with wine. Am I like a baby just weaned from my mothers milk? Is he forced to teach me to do and do, and to give me rule on rule? Well as of late I have not felt to pat myself on the back regarding this point.

 

The further question to ponder is this: What form does this condemnation take? So often we bring upon ourselves our own condemnation. I think there is still a famine, even among ourselves, of hearing the word of the Lord. Our apostles and prophets have been limited in what they can tell us. Even their testimonies of sacred things are not fully given.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think part of the B of M's problem is that it's ........well, boring....

 

The first time I tried to read it before my mission, it came to pass, that I fell into a deep slumber.

 

And then it came to pass again and again and again that I fell into a deep slumber while trying to read it.

 

Finally I decided to read the New Testament and it came to pass that I.........

 

Sorry, I can't treat this lightly. The New Testament is where I gained my testimony of the Savior and His great sacrifice on our behalf. And it captivated me in a way that no other book has had the capacity to do. I still read it nearly every morning. There is nothing out there that even comes close.

I had the same experience at age 15.  Bought my own copy of the Bible at J. C. Penny's.  A red letter edition (words of Christ in red).  Couldn't put it down.  Of course, that is the same year I read Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ, and Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

 

Brilliant wordsmiths with tremendous vocabularies do make a difference, and the Bible can be (and has been) rendered in both high and low style.  The American Bible Society's TEV can be understood by anybody, even though it gets no awards for great English style and power.  For that one must note the Elizabethan turns of phrase and rhythm employed by the KJV scholars and their predecessors, or to the compelling high style of some modern translations (the New Jerusalem Bible comes to mind).

 

Even if we excuse Joseph the country bumpkin as incapable of producing a stylish Book of Mormon text, and even if we have it completely rewritten with new syntax, rhythm, and rich vocabulary (such as would attract the praise of Samuel Clemens), we still have to ask how it is that some people find the text compelling as is?  Some of the archetypal events (slaying of Laban, visions of Lehi & Nephi, reenactment of Exodus motifs, etc.) do arrest the attention of some, but not others.  Or how some find that reading any chapter at random is enough to acquire the Holy Spirit (or as one friend put it, "the zone")?

 

Moroni himself apologizes that the style is not better due to having to use reformed Egyptian -- clearly not as expressive as the Hebrew he might have used (Morm 9:32-33).  Is that the true reason?

 

Whatever the case, one can enrich his reading of the Book of Mormon through greater awareness of what is actually going on in the text.  For that I recommend the continuing series by Brant Gardner on the Interpreter Blog at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-introduction/#more-3072, which he began on July 4, 2013, this year, and continues now at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-1-nephi-14/#more-4386 .

Edited December 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Sevenbak]

I can't wait for P. Benson's "Teaching of the Prophets" manual to come up.  I think he may very well be the last one they do.  Who's up in January, anyone know?

[Duncan]

I can't wait for P. Benson's "Teaching of the Prophets" manual to come up.  I think he may very well be the last one they do.  Who's up in January, anyone know?

 

joseph fielding smith

[Palerider]

I had the same experience at age 15.  Bought my own copy of the Bible at J. C. Penny's.  A red letter edition (words of Christ in red).  Couldn't put it down.  Of course, that is the same year I read Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ, and Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

 

Brilliant wordsmiths with tremendous vocabularies do make a difference, and the Bible can be (and has been) rendered in both high and low style.  The American Bible Society's TEV can be understood by anybody, even though it gets no awards for great English style and power.  For that one must note the Elizabethan turns of phrase and rhythm employed by the KJV scholars and their predecessors, or to the compelling high style of some modern translations (the New Jerusalem Bible comes to mind).

 

Even if we excuse Joseph the country bumpkin as incapable of producing a stylish Book of Mormon text, and even if we have it completely rewritten with new syntax, rhythm, and rich vocabulary (such as would attract the praise of Samuel Clemens), we still have to ask how it is that some people find the text compelling as is?  Some of the archetypal events (slaying of Laban, visions of Lehi & Nephi, reenactment of Exodus motifs, etc.) do arrest the attention of some, but not others.  Or how some find that reading any chapter at random is enough to acquire the Holy Spirit (or as one friend put it, "the zone")?

 

Moroni himself apologizes that the style is not better due to having to use reformed Egyptian -- clearly not as expressive as the Hebrew he might have used (Morm 9:32-33).  Is that the true reason?

 

Whatever the case, one can enrich his reading of the Book of Mormon through greater awareness of what is actually going on in the text.  For that I recommend the continuing series by Brant Gardner on the Interpreter Blog at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-introduction/#more-3072, which he began on July 4, 2013, this year, and continues now at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-1-nephi-14/#more-4386 .

 

You never know......maybe I'll check it out.

[halconero]

I think part of the B of M's problem is that it's ........well, boring....

 

The first time I tried to read it before my mission, it came to pass, that I fell into a deep slumber.

 

And then it came to pass again and again and again that I fell into a deep slumber while trying to read it.

 

Finally I decided to read the New Testament and it came to pass that I.........

 

Sorry, I can't treat this lightly. The New Testament is where I gained my testimony of the Savior and His great sacrifice on our behalf. And it captivated me in a way that no other book has had the capacity to do. I still read it nearly every morning. There is nothing out there that even comes close.

 

Boring is a highly subjective experience.

 

Analyzing the importance of primate poop is a most fascinating use of time for me, but it doesn't seem to resonate as much with others.

 

On the flip side, I tend to roll my eyes and waste time on reddit/wikipedia/encylopedia brittanica in most philosophy classes, but for some incomprehensible reason (to me) legions of mustachioed, tweed wearing, thick-rimmed students found on the University of Toronto campus adore the stuff.

Edited December 9, 2013 by halconero

[Avatar4321]

I think part of the B of M's problem is that it's ........well, boring....

 

The first time I tried to read it before my mission, it came to pass, that I fell into a deep slumber.

 

And then it came to pass again and again and again that I fell into a deep slumber while trying to read it.

 

Finally I decided to read the New Testament and it came to pass that I.........

 

Sorry, I can't treat this lightly. The New Testament is where I gained my testimony of the Savior and His great sacrifice on our behalf. And it captivated me in a way that no other book has had the capacity to do. I still read it nearly every morning. There is nothing out there that even comes close.

 

I didn't find the Book of Mormon boring at all. I found it absolutely fascinating.

 

Of course, that was only when I got serious about knowing whether the restoration was true. And i got my testimony in the D&C.

[Avatar4321]

Mosiah is the only book that does it for me in the BoM. 1 & 2 Nephi and Alma are the worst books.

 

Really? Fascinating how people differ. I find those some of the most doctrine rich books. It was Alma that helped me truly understand the need for the Atonement the first time. 2 Nephi that helped me truly understand many of the doctrines, though i agree that the Isaiah chapters were difficult.

[cdowis]

When I was on my mission I read Glenn Pearson, "Book of Mormon: Key to Conversion".  It literally changed my understanding and attitude to the Book of Mormon.  I have read the BOM over 30 times since then.

Edited December 9, 2013 by cdowis

[Sevenbak]

joseph fielding smith

Thanks.

[Tacenda]

Has anyone here read the 1830 version? In chapter form? It's fun to see how the earliest saints would have experienced reading it. But to some it might be shockingly different with all the changes that have been made, mostly clerical but a few changes might surprise. .

[Rivers]

I read the Book of Mormon three or four times before my mission. I was unusual.

I am now reading through Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon. It's a lot more fun to read. And it helped me understand Jacob 5 better.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Rivers

[Avatar4321]

When I was on my mission I read Glenn Pearson, "Book of Mormon: Key to Conversion".  It literally changed my understanding and attitude to the Book of Mormon.  I have read the BOM over 30 times since then.

 

Ive never heard of that book. Is it at all difficult to find?

[Michael Sanders]

there was an article by Noel Reynolds that you may find interesting

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6565

Duncan,

 

Thanks for the link - a good read.  Still nothing on the context of Section 84 and what it is referencing.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

 

Thanks for the link - a good read.  Still nothing on the context of Section 84 and what it is referencing.

 

 

keep checking this link

http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-index?lang=eng

 

BYUTV has Doctrine and Covenants roundtable discussions you can look up, they have every section. Also scripture guides by C. Max Caldwell, Joseph F. McConkie, Steven Harper and H. Dean Garrett come to mind

[Michael Sanders]

Related to this is the reported statement made by Joseph Smith in November 1841 while apparently conversing with the Q12 on various topics where he:

 

"...told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

 

 

As I parse these words - "the most correct" book would refer to is miraculous production, preservation, coming forth, and translation - not entirely of human origin.  It being the "keystone" or our religion being like a cornerstone or foundational structure that maintains the integrity and soundness of the whole structure.  And the last part of the statement would have to do with its spiritual content - as a record which brings one close to God by its teachings and in restoring the plain and precious parts of his gospel.  I would read the "any other book" part to refer to any "good" book that purports to bring one closer to deity.  Could it be in reference to other "good books" in general that the saints have been encouraged to seek after?  Or could it refer to other so-called religious books that claim heavenly origin?  Or could it refer to books like the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants?  Not that they are incorrect books or even scripture, but that the plainess of the Book of Mormon in its teachings and the miraculous means sets it in a more lofty position.  It seems to me that there is a tendency to set "latter-day revelation" from modern prophets above this work - but this quote from Joseph seems to indicate that, at least up till 1841, that the Book of Mormon was elevated above all other books.  It would seem that Joseph might have said that the D&C would have been in this place - it being the word to the church in his day.  How do you read this statement?

 

Mike

[Michael Sanders]

keep checking this link

http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-index?lang=eng

 

BYUTV has Doctrine and Covenants roundtable discussions you can look up, they have every section. Also scripture guides by C. Max Caldwell, Joseph F. McConkie, Steven Harper and H. Dean Garrett come to mind

 

Thanks for the link - I have quiet a library of references on the D&C.  Robert Woodford, Max Parkin, M. Marquardt, Lyndon Cook, Steven Harper, Mark Staker, Milton Backman, Dean Jessee, etc, etc..  None that I'm aware of have made mention of the specific context of this portion of Section 84.  I read the reference by Ezra Taft Benson about the "missionaries" treating it lightly and was curious where that might have come from.