Bom: Do We Really Need It?

[mormonnewb]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

[mfbukowski]

The BOM is the evidence that Joseph is a prophet.

Either it is scripture or it is not.

[longview]

Please reference all of Ezra Taft Benson's statements about the BoM.

[mfbukowski]

Please reference all of Ezra Taft Benson's statements about the BoM.

Well at least one reference would have helped.

[Rob Osborn]

The BoM teaches the doctrines of Christ with Christ as the central figure prophesied to come, who did come to the ancient inhabitants. Christ teaches us many of the plain and simple doctrines of how men ought to be in their hearts and character in approaching and gaining salvation. Because it has only been translated once it remains pure in its content unlike the bible which has lost a lot of the true doctrines of Christ because of copy errors, translation issues, etc. More than anything though the BoM teaches us about the process of repentance, baptism and forgiveness of sins and how this can be attainable for all- both the whore and liar to the near saint. It also teaches us the true nature of baptism and also some of the corrupt teachings such as infant baptism. It also is written specifically for us- the gentile nation warning us of everything from secret combinations to the pride of the world.

[EllenMaksoud]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

In comparison to many folks I know the Bible quite well, even as a Muslim because I had been Evangelical for 32 years before then. So many passages in the BOM reminded me of passages in the Bible, so the two reinforce each other. It is a big deal to stop being Muslim, some will kill you over that. One of the things I did while investigating was to go to Youtube and look at Mormon videos, a surprising amount of which were anti Mormon. It helped me to make up my mind that so many of the Anti Videos were really whiny, told lies, or incorrectly used scripture. So in the end, they reinforced my faith in the church

[Palerider]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

 

Yeah, you may recall that oft-quoted phrase, "the BoM is the keystone of our religion".

 

Personally I haven't found anything in the BoM that wasn't already covered in the Bible somewhere if someone was willing to do the studying and use a little logic.

 

And judging from all of the "discussions" generated by numerous and difficult BoM passages, I would say it's claim of making all things doctrinal more plain and easy to understand, is way over-rated. 

 

It engenders just as much controversy, even among the Mormons who claim to understand it, as does the Bible. 

 

Just look at how the principle of "Grace" as described in the BoM has been stretched like a peice of rubber to cover all of the bases Mormons want it to.

 

Grace as we learned it in the 70's was a little different than the way it is explained today.

[longview]

Well at least one reference would have helped.

OK. You are right.  Here is his awesome testimony printed in Ensign article from November 1986:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/11/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion

 

. . . The only thing that preceded it was the First Vision. In that marvelous manifestation, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned the true nature of God and that God had a work for him to do. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon was the next thing to follow.

If the early Saints were rebuked for treating the Book of Mormon lightly, are we under any less condemnation if we do the same? The Lord Himself bears testimony that it is of eternal significance. Can a small number of us bring the whole Church under condemnation because we trifle with sacred things? What will we say at the Judgment when we stand before Him and meet His probing gaze if we are among those described as forgetting the new covenant?

. . . that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon). A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.

. . . 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.

. . . reason why we must make the Book of Mormon a center focus of study is that it was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us.

Brethren and sisters, I implore you with all my heart that you consider with great solemnity the importance of the Book of Mormon to you personally and to the Church collectively.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 84, verses 54 to 58, 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 have 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 judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.” [D&C 84:54–58]

[Glenn101]

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, not because of the doctrines that it contains, but because it was brought forth through the gift and power of God. Without it, the LDS church would have been just another garden variety of Christian religions that were sprining up on the American scene. It immediatley attracted the (mostly negative) attention of those other religious denominations, but was the unique feature of the 'new" religion that set it apart from the others.

 

While not all believe and are converted, I dare say that the conversion rate would have been almost nil without the Book of Mormon.

 

Glenn

[Duncan]

One doctrine the I like in the BOM is the doctrine of the Resurrection, which is not really explained whatsoever in the NT. Also as someone once noted the Bible says what happened and the Book of Mormon tells us why it happened

Edited January 15, 2014 by Duncan

[mormonnewb]

The BOM is the evidence that Joseph is a prophet.

Either it is scripture or it is not.

 

I'm sure I'm missing the logic here.  How is an unverifiable history book EVIDENCE of Joseph's prophetic mantle?  Because you got a confirmation based on a feeling about the truthfulness of the BOM?

 

That's fine!  That's exactly how I came to my testimony that Jesus is the Messiah.  And I think that's a perfectly valid way to arrive at a testimony about Joseph Smith.  I just don't see how the BOM adds to that testimony.

[mormonnewb]

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, not because of the doctrines that it contains, but because it was brought forth through the gift and power of God. Without it, the LDS church would have been just another garden variety of Christian religions that were sprining up on the American scene. It immediatley attracted the (mostly negative) attention of those other religious denominations, but was the unique feature of the 'new" religion that set it apart from the others.

 

While not all believe and are converted, I dare say that the conversion rate would have been almost nil without the Book of Mormon.

 

Glenn

 

OK, I can swing with that as a theory for why we led with the BOM in the past but I'm not sure it means we should continue to do so.  I think that the Internet is going to make it harder and harder to win converts in the industrialized world.

 

In fact, does anyone have any recent missionary numbers broken down by country/region?  If it weren't for those precious 8-year-olds in our stake here in AZ, we could just empty the baptismal font and save on the water bills.  In the last seven years, my ward has had THREE converted couples (the most recent was last weekend).  And while the slow baptism rate makes sense given my arrival into the flock, it doesn't explain the four years with only ONE convert before that.

[strappinglad]

"It has to be true , my friend told me " ( 1700s )

" It has to be true , I read it in the newspaper " ( 1800s)

" It has to be true , I heard it on the radio" ( 1940s)

" It has to be true, I saw it on TV " ( 1960s)

" It has to be true, I saw it on the internet " (2000+)

It has always been a struggle to filter the truth from the noise.

[mormonnewb]

The BoM teaches the doctrines of Christ with Christ as the central figure prophesied to come, who did come to the ancient inhabitants. Christ teaches us many of the plain and simple doctrines of how men ought to be in their hearts and character in approaching and gaining salvation. Because it has only been translated once it remains pure in its content unlike the bible which has lost a lot of the true doctrines of Christ because of copy errors, translation issues, etc. More than anything though the BoM teaches us about the process of repentance, baptism and forgiveness of sins and how this can be attainable for all- both the whore and liar to the near saint. It also teaches us the true nature of baptism and also some of the corrupt teachings such as infant baptism. It also is written specifically for us- the gentile nation warning us of everything from secret combinations to the pride of the world.

 

 

The NT teaches the doctrines of Christ in far more detail.  In fact, Christ just makes a cameo in 3 Nephi while four ENTIRE books of the NT are devoted to his life and teachings.  Do we really get a clearer picture of Christ in the BOM?

 

The translation problems of the Bible are more than made up for by the fact that the names and places can be historically verified by other contemporary sources.  We have strong evidence that there was a Galilean carpenter who was crucified because he was also written about by the Romans.  The Babylonian exile wasn't just written about in the OT but also by the Assyrians themselves.  Today, you and I can climb Mount Nebo and stand roughly on the spot where Moses himself stood.  The same can't be said for Zarahemla.

 

[Funny thing, in making sure that I spelled Zarahemla correctly, I decided to Google it.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.

 

"Non-Mormon archaeologists and historians do not consider Zarahemla to be an actual place that existed in ancient America and dismiss the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon for more detail about the archaeological debate between Mormons and mainstream archaeologists)."

 

Is this what we want our investigators to run smack into at the beginning of their faith journeys?]

[Duncan]

The NT teaches the doctrines of Christ in far more detail.  In fact, Christ just makes a cameo in 3 Nephi while four ENTIRE books of the NT are devoted to his life and teachings.  Do we really get a clearer picture of Christ in the BOM?

 

The translation problems of the Bible are more than made up for by the fact that the names and places can be historically verified by other contemporary sources.  We have strong evidence that there was a Galilean carpenter who was crucified because he was also written about by the Romans.  The Babylonian exile wasn't just written about in the OT but also by the Assyrians themselves.  Today, you and I can climb Mount Nebo and stand roughly on the spot where Moses himself stood.  The same can't be said for Zarahemla.

 

[Funny thing, in making sure that I spelled Zarahemla correctly, I decided to Google it.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.

 

"Non-Mormon archaeologists and historians do not consider Zarahemla to be an actual place that existed in ancient America and dismiss the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon for more detail about the archaeological debate between Mormons and mainstream archaeologists)."

 

Is this what we want our investigators to run smack into at the beginning of their faith journeys?]

 

 

if they do have them explain the physics of the resurrection or the raising of Lazarus

[Duncan]

The NT teaches the doctrines of Christ in far more detail.  In fact, Christ just makes a cameo in 3 Nephi while four ENTIRE books of the NT are devoted to his life and teachings.  Do we really get a clearer picture of Christ in the BOM?

 

The translation problems of the Bible are more than made up for by the fact that the names and places can be historically verified by other contemporary sources.  We have strong evidence that there was a Galilean carpenter who was crucified because he was also written about by the Romans.  The Babylonian exile wasn't just written about in the OT but also by the Assyrians themselves.  Today, you and I can climb Mount Nebo and stand roughly on the spot where Moses himself stood.  The same can't be said for Zarahemla.

 

[Funny thing, in making sure that I spelled Zarahemla correctly, I decided to Google it.  Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.

 

"Non-Mormon archaeologists and historians do not consider Zarahemla to be an actual place that existed in ancient America and dismiss the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon for more detail about the archaeological debate between Mormons and mainstream archaeologists)."

 

Is this what we want our investigators to run smack into at the beginning of their faith journeys?]

 

 

what doctrines in the NT does the Bible explain better then the Book of Mormon?

[mormonnewb]

In comparison to many folks I know the Bible quite well, even as a Muslim because I had been Evangelical for 32 years before then. So many passages in the BOM reminded me of passages in the Bible, so the two reinforce each other. It is a big deal to stop being Muslim, some will kill you over that. One of the things I did while investigating was to go to Youtube and look at Mormon videos, a surprising amount of which were anti Mormon. It helped me to make up my mind that so many of the Anti Videos were really whiny, told lies, or incorrectly used scripture. So in the end, they reinforced my faith in the church

 

As a fellow convert, I'm really interested in your thoughts here.  I agree that the Church's very best friends are the anti-Mormons.    They strengthened my testimony in the CHURCH as well.  However, I can't say they did much for my testimony about the BOM.  Did their arguments against the BOM persuade you of its truth?

[mormonnewb]

if they do have them explain the physics of the resurrection or the raising of Lazarus

 

For me, it wasn't special knowledge of the resurrection that made me forsake my own religious traditions to join the Church.  It was the fact that the saints lived out Christ's NT teachings better than any Christians I've ever met.

[Freedom]

Yeah, you may recall that oft-quoted phrase, "the BoM is the keystone of our religion".

 

Personally I haven't found anything in the BoM that wasn't already covered in the Bible somewhere if someone was willing to do the studying and use a little logic.

 

I would suggest that perhaps you have not read the Book of Mormon with much intent. Some unique teachings of the Book of Mormon:

 

Why Christ, being perfect, still needed to be baptized (2 Nephi 31:4–10)

The atonement is "infinite and eternal". (Alma 34:14)

All things given of God are a type of Christ and testify of Him (2 Nephi 11:4, Alma 30:44)

The nature of the resurrection: "this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that they can die no more, their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal..." (Alma 11:45)

How Satan will be bound during the millennium (1 Nephi 22:26)

What motivates Satan - retribution for his misery (2 Nephi 2:18, 2 Nephi 2:27)

The devil hates all men, including those that follow him (Alma 30:60)

The fall of Adam and Eve was part of God's plan – had he not fallen, they would have remained in the garden forever, knowing no joy or misery, doing no good nor evil, having no children. (2 Nephi 2:22–25)

This life is a probationary state, a time to prepare to meet God. (Alma 42:1-10,13, Alma 12:24 (20-24), Alma 34:32)

"We are saved by grace, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

Baptism existed before John the Baptist (2 Nephi 31:4–6,8,11–12 Mosiah 18:10,13,15–17)

How to retain a remission of your sins (Mosiah 4:11-26)

We must repent, be baptized and become as a little child or we can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. (3 Nephi 11:37–38)

Baptism not for infants (Moroni 8:4-23)

Why we need the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible (2 Nephi 29:1-14, Title Page (see end of last paragraph))

The answer to the age-old question 'How can God be a god of love, yet have commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites?' (1 Nephi 17:32–45)

Priestcraft defined and condemned (2 Nephi 26:29-31)

"By small and simple things are great things brought to pass, and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls" (Alma 37:6, 1 Nephi 16:9)

The role and ministry of angels (Moroni 7:25,29-32)

[mormonnewb]

what doctrines in the NT does the Bible explain better then the Book of Mormon?

 

While I understand that there are far more references to Christ in the BOM, Christ gets to speak for Himself more in the New Testament.  We get His teachings by way of parable from His own mouth.  We also get a much more in-depth view of His humanity as we get to live through his last days.  And we get all of these things from people who walked with Him (as opposed to learning about Him through a prophet's revelation or Hebrew scripture references).

 

In trying to live like Christ, I find it easier to follow His example than I do to follow His doctrine.  So, for example, in an earlier post you mentioned that the BOM explains the details of Lazarus' resurrection.  However, in the NT, we learn how Jesus handled the living in the wake of Lazarus' death.  We learned that He wept with them.  We learned how He handled Martha's rebuke with love and compassion.  Given that I only have a part on the living side of the drama, I find it more valuable to know how to raise Martha than Lazarus.

Edited January 15, 2014 by mormonnewb

[The Nehor]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

 

It scares me that there are people that trust the internet on this level. I also question your analysis of there being more detractors then supporters out there. I suspect that is only true on the internet. Most people do not care one way or the other. Anti-mormons are generally cowards and so they flock to the internet where they can spew hatred in safety.

 

Why is it important? Many of the greatest truths of the gospel are taught in it. It was also given as a warning to us. We are to find ourselves in it. Many simplify this with talk about the pride cycle and prosperity and do not look for the root causes and learn how to avoid the cycle. As President Benson taught there is a power on the book. When you study it you not only get the information but blessed with a greater capacity for good and greater resistance to temptation. I have no idea how or why it works that way. It simply does.

[thatjimguy]

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

 

 

 

 

It is about freedom. 

 

 

 

When asked, "Why should we need a new Bible? We already have one!" Freedom is the answer. There is so much talked about freedom in the Book of Mormon it cannot be ignored. The idea that everyone has to have a choice to believe or not.

 

With the Bible by itself, you can still use it a tool to force people to Christ. There is evidence of that all around us of certain Christians who would like nothing more than to force everyone into religious submission. 

 

The Book of Mormon eliminates that possibility. It is not assumed. it is not inferred. It is not implied. It is scripture.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 15, 2014 by thatjimguy

[slamarwi]

Well said thatjimguy!

 

I will also like to add to this thread that it's much easier to follow the patterns laid out in the Book of Mormon and contrast them with ours as we wade through the modern-day gadiantons and secret combinations.

 

Also, the vision of the tree of life with the great and spacious building and mists of darkness etc. is phenomenal. 

 

What really makes the BOM awesome is that it's not trying to recreate the NT, just adding another point of view. I can't wait for the next scriptural records to arrive.

Edited January 15, 2014 by slamarwi

[Hamilton Porter]

Yeah, you may recall that oft-quoted phrase, "the BoM is the keystone of our religion".

 

Personally I haven't found anything in the BoM that wasn't already covered in the Bible somewhere if someone was willing to do the studying and use a little logic.

 

And judging from all of the "discussions" generated by numerous and difficult BoM passages, I would say it's claim of making all things doctrinal more plain and easy to understand, is way over-rated. 

 

It engenders just as much controversy, even among the Mormons who claim to understand it, as does the Bible. 

 

Just look at how the principle of "Grace" as described in the BoM has been stretched like a peice of rubber to cover all of the bases Mormons want it to.

 

Grace as we learned it in the 70's was a little different than the way it is explained today.

 

So the Fall being a good thing and Jesus having physical form before the incarnation can be logically deduced from the Bible?

[Hamilton Porter]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

 

You gotta read it lots of times.