Bom: Do We Really Need It?

[why me]

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?

I think that the reason for praying about the book of mormon is in the book of mormon itself. It asks the reader to pray about the book. If the book of mormon is not true, then Joseph was not a prophet. I find it amazing just how many sights are out there condemning mormonism and the book of mormon. With so many sights out there, I have to wonder why. Could it be that the authors of such sights wish for investigators to have their mind poisoned before asking in prayer that it is true? I think so. And then if that is the case, why would they wish that? Why not just let the book speak for itself and let the people pray about its truthfulness?

[why me]

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?

I don't think that it is a feeling at all. I didn't get a feeling that it is true. I had a spiritual experience that confirmed its truthfulness. And it was rather powerful. I can say that I felt the power of its truthfulness but even then I would call it just a feeling. And I think that this is what you are missing. It is not a feeling at all but an experience. Lets look at edward stevenson's testimony:

 

[A]fter the organization of the Pontiac [Michigan] Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of L. D. Saints, in 1834, we had the pleasure of having a visit from the Prophet Joseph Smith: a plain but noble looking man, of large frame and about 6 feet high. With him was his Father, Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, whose sister Sophia Kellog lived in our settlement.

A great stir was made in this settlement at so distinguised visitors the meetings held were crowded to see and hear the testamonies given which were powerful I will here relate my own experience on the ocaision of a meeting in our old log school House The Prophet stood at a table for the pulpit whare he began relateing his vision and before he got through he was in the midst of the congregation with uplifted hand. I do believe that there was not one person presant who did at the time being or who was not convicted of the truth of his vision, of an Angle to him his countanance seemed to me to assume a heavenly whiteness and his voice was so peirseing and forcible for my part it so impressed me as to become indellibly imprinted in my mind....

The visit of this man of God to our house ... left a lasting remembrance with us and will stand as a witness against those who were so favoured above many.

In that same year, 1834, in the midst of many large congregations, the Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conersation he had with them. Never before did I feel such power as was manifested on these occasions.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/firstvision_edwardstevenson.html

 

I think that we can safely say that it is more than a feeling.

[halconero]

Here is my take on the vital importance of the Book of Mormon. I believe it to be restorative of the vital concept of the covenant relationship between God and the individual relationship, even in Christianity.

The other day, I was talking with someone of another faith, who told me that "covenants were for the Jews, but only belief in Christ is required for Christians." One could indeed infer that from the New Testament, but it requires a modern view of the words "believe" and "faith."

Those two words have to be some of the most misunderstood in the modern reading of the Bible, in whatever version you're reading. In their original Greek or Aramaic understanding, their root words mean "to love, to trust, to show devotion, to have loyalty to," and "to demonstrate duty, to obey, to render loving loyalty," rather than the common conception that it is to "accept something to be true, given not having a sure knowledge on it's factuality."

When the King James Version was produced, belief and faith still largely meant something close to the meaning found in the Bible. The same goes for translations into other languages that were beginning around that time (The Reina-Valera in Spanish for instance). It was shortly thereafter that they began to transform into our modern understanding of the words, meanings that destroy their original theological significance.

When read in their original meaning, Christ and the apostles ask for so much more than mere acceptance of the Saviour as a true entity. They are asking for love, devotion, loyalty, and the performance of duty towards his teachings.

Think of scriptures such as Hebrews that say "Faith is things hoped for which are unseen." And now read it as "Devoted duty, loyalty and love is things hoped for which are unseen."

Or take the story of Christ and the possessed boy and his father. "If you [have love, trust, and loyalty], all things are possible." "Oh, I [love God, try to obey him, and trust him] Lord. Help thou my [imperfect performance of duty, disobedience, and trust]."

It sounds more and more like Christ is asking his followers to enter a covenant relationship with him. To perform their duties as his followers, to trust in his word, to truly love him (therefore keep my commandments), and to be loyal to the Saviour. There are many in the world today who lacks this understanding of the Saviour, and his Gospel.

Enter the Book of Mormon. I believe this book, more than any other, emphasizes and teaches the necessity of the covenant relationship that is required of, sanctifies, cleanses, and gives grace to Christians. It uses many of our modern understandings of belief and faith, but elaborates on these to create a need for us to enter into promises with God, upon baptism and repentance. If you think about, the Gospel as taught by the Church focuses so much on the necessity of covenants with God, something I believe to be drawn from the Book of Mormon, and something that compliments, uplifts, and restores the Bible to its true message.

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

You're surprised that someone would turn to the Internet to research FACTUAL information? Really? If I told you about the lost city of Atlantis, would you just take my word for it? Perhaps, it's just me but just because two 19-yo virgins tell me something is true, doesn't make it so.

And as for all of those "cowards" online, you know that you are referring to the Smithsonian and archeologist at just about every major university in the country, right? And while I know that I'm absolutely NUTS for trusting in the opinions of those with expertise and experience in the matter, there are at least two to three dozen people like me out there. So for the empirically-minded, the BOM might not be the best evidence for the restoration.

[mormonnewb]

Here is my take on the vital importance of the Book of Mormon. I believe it to be restorative of the vital concept of the covenant relationship between God and the individual relationship, even in Christianity.

The other day, I was talking with someone of another faith, who told me that "covenants were for the Jews, but only belief in Christ is required for Christians." One could indeed infer that from the New Testament, but it requires a modern view of the words "believe" and "faith."

Those two words have to be some of the most misunderstood in the modern reading of the Bible, in whatever version you're reading. In their original Greek or Aramaic understanding, their root words mean "to love, to trust, to show devotion, to have loyalty to," and "to demonstrate duty, to obey, to render loving loyalty," rather than the common conception that it is to "accept something to be true, given not having a sure knowledge on it's factuality."

When the King James Version was produced, belief and faith still largely meant something close to the meaning found in the Bible. The same goes for translations into other languages that were beginning around that time (The Reina-Valera in Spanish for instance). It was shortly thereafter that they began to transform into our modern understanding of the words, meanings that destroy their original theological significance.

When read in their original meaning, Christ and the apostles ask for so much more than mere acceptance of the Saviour as a true entity. They are asking for love, devotion, loyalty, and the performance of duty towards his teachings.

Think of scriptures such as Hebrews that say "Faith is things hoped for which are unseen." And now read it as "Devoted duty, loyalty and love is things hoped for which are unseen."

Or take the story of Christ and the possessed boy and his father. "If you [have love, trust, and loyalty], all things are possible." "Oh, I [love God, try to obey him, and trust him] Lord. Help thou my [imperfect performance of duty, disobedience, and trust]."

It sounds more and more like Christ is asking his followers to enter a covenant relationship with him. To perform their duties as his followers, to trust in his word, to truly love him (therefore keep my commandments), and to be loyal to the Saviour. There are many in the world today who lacks this understanding of the Saviour, and his Gospel.

Enter the Book of Mormon. I believe this book, more than any other, emphasizes and teaches the necessity of the covenant relationship that is required of, sanctifies, cleanses, and gives grace to Christians. It uses many of our modern understandings of belief and faith, but elaborates on these to create a need for us to enter into promises with God, upon baptism and repentance. If you think about, the Gospel as taught by the Church focuses so much on the necessity of covenants with God, something I believe to be drawn from the Book of Mormon, and something that compliments, uplifts, and restores the Bible to its true message.

So in the BOM, Christ talks more about covenants than in the KJV Bible? Because it seems to me that Christ simply repeats His message from the KJV (and sometimes verbatim).

It seems to me that the greater "coventiness" of Mormonism largely comes from the D&C and subsequent revelation.

Edited January 15, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I don't think that it is a feeling at all. I didn't get a feeling that it is true. I had a spiritual experience that confirmed its truthfulness. And it was rather powerful. I can say that I felt the power of its truthfulness but even then I would call it just a feeling. And I think that this is what you are missing. It is not a feeling at all but an experience. Lets look at edward stevenson's testimony:

 

[A]fter the organization of the Pontiac [Michigan] Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of L. D. Saints, in 1834, we had the pleasure of having a visit from the Prophet Joseph Smith: a plain but noble looking man, of large frame and about 6 feet high. With him was his Father, Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, whose sister Sophia Kellog lived in our settlement.

A great stir was made in this settlement at so distinguised visitors the meetings held were crowded to see and hear the testamonies given which were powerful I will here relate my own experience on the ocaision of a meeting in our old log school House The Prophet stood at a table for the pulpit whare he began relateing his vision and before he got through he was in the midst of the congregation with uplifted hand. I do believe that there was not one person presant who did at the time being or who was not convicted of the truth of his vision, of an Angle to him his countanance seemed to me to assume a heavenly whiteness and his voice was so peirseing and forcible for my part it so impressed me as to become indellibly imprinted in my mind....

The visit of this man of God to our house ... left a lasting remembrance with us and will stand as a witness against those who were so favoured above many.

In that same year, 1834, in the midst of many large congregations, the Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conersation he had with them. Never before did I feel such power as was manifested on these occasions.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/firstvision_edwardstevenson.html

 

I think that we can safely say that it is more than a feeling.

You just made my point! All of these people came to a knowing about JS' prophetic mantle without reading a word of the BOM. Just as I've known many people to come to faith in Christ without reading a word of the Bible.

I'm not at all downplaying spiritual experiences. I'm simply saying that presenting the BOM as factual "proof" of JS' mantle seems to be counterproductive in the Internet age.

[halconero]

The Book of Mormon has 131 uses of the word covenant, Doctrine & Covenants has 91 uses of the word covenant. The Book of Mormon has 85 uses of the word promise(s), the Doctrine & Covenants has 62. 

 

To answer your question, here's part of Christ's unique (not related to the KJV) personal message to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon:

 

3 Nephi 10: 6-7  O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart. But if not, O house of Israel, the places of your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers.

 

3 Nephi 16: 11-12 -  And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.  And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledgeof the fulness of my gospel. 13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

 

3 Nephi 15: 8-9 -   For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.

 

3 Nephi 29 (a whole chapter about covenants!!!!! Mentioned three times in 9 verses!) -  1 And now behold, I say unto you that when the Lord shall see fit, in his wisdom, that these sayings shall come unto the Gentiles according to his word, then ye may know that the covenant which the Father hath made with the children of Israel, concerning their restoration to the lands of their inheritance, is already beginning to be fulfilled. And ye may know that the words of the Lord, which have been spoken by the holy prophets, shall all be fulfilled; and ye need not say that the Lord delays his coming unto the children of Israel. And ye need not imagine in your hearts that the words which have been spoken are vain, for behold, the Lord will remember his covenant which he hath made unto his people of the house of Israel. And when ye shall see these sayings coming forth among you, then ye need not any longer spurn at the doings of the Lord, for the sword of his justice is in his right hand; and behold, at that day, if ye shall spurn at his doings he will cause that it shall soon overtake you. Wo unto him that spurneth at the doings of the Lord; yea, wo unto him that shall deny the Christ and his works. Yea, wo unto him that shall deny the revelations of the Lord, and that shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, or by prophecy, or by gifts, or by tongues, or by healings, or by the power of the Holy Ghost! Yea, and wo unto him that shall say at that day, to get gain, that there can be no miracle wrought by Jesus Christ; for he that doeth this shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Christ! Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn. Therefore ye need not suppose that ye can turn the right hand of the Lord unto the left, that he may not execute judgment unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the house of Israel.

 

3 Nephi 21: 3-6 -   Verily, verily, I say unto you, when these things shall be made known unto them of the Father, and shall come forth of the Father,from them unto you;   For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth from them unto a remnant of your seed, that the covenant of the Father may be fulfilled which he hath covenanted with his people, O house of Israel;

  Therefore, when these works and the works which shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity; For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel;

[halconero]

Those are quotes from Christ about covenants, that are unique to the Book of Mormon (not the KJV). Need I go through the other 200+ mentions of covenants and promises in the Book of Mormon?

 

To put it in perspective, it has around 50 more mentions than the New Testament and D&C combined.

[escott3564]

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.

For me, the Book of Mormon added to my testimony of Christ.  And that was the whole point of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon to begin with.  It is a SECOND TESTAMENT of Jesus Christ.

[The Nehor]

You're surprised that someone would turn to the Internet to research FACTUAL information? Really? If I told you about the lost city of Atlantis, would you just take my word for it? Perhaps, it's just me but just because two 19-yo virgins tell me something is true, doesn't make it so.

And as for all of those "cowards" online, you know that you are referring to the Smithsonian and archeologist at just about every major university in the country, right? And while I know that I'm absolutely NUTS for trusting in the opinions of those with expertise and experience in the matter, there are at least two to three dozen people like me out there. So for the empirically-minded, the BOM might not be the best evidence for the restoration.

 

If they had been 19-yo pansexuals with extensive experience going back to when they were 15 would you have trusted them? Just kind of weird that you equate virginity with untrustworthy.

 

I wasn't calling people cowards for using the internet for research purposes. I was calling them cowards because they hide behind pseudonyms and take cheap shots. Most of the time academics put their names on their papers. I did get a brief chuckle at the idea that internet antis have "expertise and experience". I assume by the comparison you made that these intellectuals publish in peer-reviewed journals with extensive references so that they can satisfy the empirically-minded discerners of truth such as yourself. I mean I hate to think you are taking the word of anonymous hacks without credentials like those loonies going on about Atlantis.

[rameumptom]

The Book of Mormon is the original endowment in our dispensation.  To understand the Book of Mormon is to understand the temple endowment.

 

The Book of Mormon is also necessary as a Second Witness of Christ.  The world is growing away from belief in God and the Messiah, with spiritualism replacing such faith.  This due to many questioning the Bible's teachings as being from God.  But the Book of Mormon restores that connection to faith in Christ.  Without it, there could not have been a Restoration, as during its translation, Joseph learned of baptism, priesthood, and so many other things that he would not have asked about without first having read of it in the BoM plates.

[Avatar4321]

Considering the Lord has told us that we are under condemnation for neglecting the Book of Mormon and the lengths He went to preserve it for our day, I think it's vital for us.

 

Not only that but it describes what is going to happen in our day leading up to Christ's return.

 

If you don't have a testimony of the Book of Mormon yet, exercise faith in it anyway. Study it. Apply it to your life. I can promise you that you will recieve your testimony of it. I find it to be one of the most powerful witnesses of Jesus Christ and to the ministry of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

[rameumptom]

So in the BOM, Christ talks more about covenants than in the KJV Bible? Because it seems to me that Christ simply repeats His message from the KJV (and sometimes verbatim).

It seems to me that the greater "coventiness" of Mormonism largely comes from the D&C and subsequent revelation.

 

Try reading "An Other Testament: On Typology" by Joseph Spencer. I think you will see the BoM on a wholly different level when it comes to covenants, etc.  Free PDF here at Salt Press.

[JLHPROF]

I understand what the OP is getting at.  The BOM is the word of God and was revealed to add to our testimony of the Savior and provide the scripturally required "second witness".

But at the same time, what unique Mormon doctrines were restored in the BOM as opposed to the D&C?  What does the BOM teach us about God or the gospel that wasn't in the Bible?  Most of our newly restored doctrines came from other sources.

It's also interesting the the GA's didn't quote the BOM very much at all in their discourses for the first 50+ years of the church.  Even Joseph Smith rarely referred to it.

 

I believe that the BOM is true and that its restoration alone is a testimony of that fact and of Joseph's divine calling.  I believe that Joseph meant it when he said it was the most correct and we should abide by its precepts.  But what part of the gospel would we lose without its teachings?

Edited January 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[cdowis]

"Book of Mormon: Key to Conversion" Glenn Pearson

 

Out of print, but it gives a good discussion on how the BOM supplements the Bible.

Edited January 15, 2014 by cdowis

[mormonnewb]

Okay. So I'm starting to see why we need the Book of Mormon but I'm still not convinced that we should LEAD with it, given the difficulties with its historicity.

For example, Protestants don't start with Jonah's promise - "Pray to know the truth that a man could be swallowed by a whale and survive for three days unharmed despite all of the biological evidence to the contrary and then you will know that Jesus is the Savior of the world." Sure, many Protestants believe in the literal truth of the Jonah narrative but it does not form the BASIS of their testimony.

In contrast, I was introduced to this church with the following: "Pray to know the truth that ancient white Jews from Palestine sailed to America and populated the New World despite considerable archeological and genetic evidence to the contrary and you will know that Jesus is the Messiah and that His Church has been restored in these latter-days."

I eventually came to a testimony about the Church by testing it against Jesus' definition in John 13:35 (they shall know that you are my disciples by your love for one another). That is a testimony that can't be wrested away by Internet posters, whether they be renown archeologists or snarky anti-Mormons.

[Kevin Christensen]

That there is more about Jesus in the New Testament than in the Book of Mormon is not a problem for me because the Book of Mormon is not supposed to replace the Bible, but to compliment it.

I think its a matter of finding the most perceptive scholars, rather than the biggest consensus. I try to stay current on both criticisms and defenses of the Book of Mormon. One advantage that the defenders have is that they live in the house. Most of the critics just come to visit for long enough to justify leaving. Those who love and live with the Book of Mormon take more time to wrestle with puzzles, seek solutions, improve readings, and over time, many have developed far more expertise in contextualizing and reading the book. For the past forty years of my serious wrestling with the Book of Mormon, I have found that I always learn far more about the best arguments of the critics from the best defenders of the Book of Mormon than I learn of the best arguments in favor of historicity from even the most determined critics. (Compare, for instance, Michael Coe's remarks on the topic with Sorenson's direct response. Coe turns out to be woefully uninformed on the Book of Mormon, despite his Mesoamerican credentials, and despite his having actually read it in the remote past, which makes him one of the better informed critics.)

And paradigms of the Book of Mormon should be approached not in terms of proof or falsification, but in terms of which is better, and which holds the most promise for the future. Alma 32 talks about the difference between wanting to "know" with absolute finality and settling for "cause to believe" that serves an ongoing exploration.

On what the Book of Mormon adds to the picture of Jesus in the New Testament, for instance, have you read Richard L. Anderson here:

https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/apocryphal-writings-and-latter-day-saints/4-imitation-gospels-and-christ-s-book-mormon

Or Hugh Nibley on 3 Nephi compared to Old World 40 Day literature:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=21

Or John Welch on what the Sermon at the Temple brings to the Sermon on the Mount:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/illuminating-the-sermon-at-the-temple-sermon-on-the-mount/

That sort of thing gets me rather excited. And oddly enough, the skeptics rarely, if ever, so much as mention the existence of this kind of material.

And the work on the historical settings of the Book of Mormon, from Nibley, and the Astons and others on the Old World, and the Arabian Journey:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/glimpses-of-lehi-s-jerusalem/

And Sorenson, Gardner, Clark, and Poulson on the New World settings strikes me as exciting as well. I'm currently 200 pages into Mormon's Codex.

Personally, in comparing the Book of Mormon to the Bible, one thing I notice is that the Bible contains surprisingly little about the afterlife, and the Book of Mormon, a great deal, thanks to Alma, whose conversion came "nigh unto death." I've written on that at length in JBMS 2/1.

But of course, Alma 32 also talks about listeners starting with even a "portion" of the word, and nurturing that, which is exactly what you have done to very good effect in your spiritual journey. I just happen to think good things also happen when I nurture other portions of the word as well.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 15, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Buzzard]

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?]

While I am convinced of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, we make a major mistake when we treat it as a book of history. With the exception of Lehi's journey from Jerusalem (for which, interestingly, a convincing archaeological argument can be made for with known Middle Eastern places and routes), the history in the BOM serves as a severely condensed skeleton to on which the spiritual teachings of the book are found.

Think about it, how much history of a civilization that lasted a thousand years can you work into that short a book? And you even have to squeeze in a very Readers Digest treatise on the Jaredites. I have read books on Pearl Harbor thicker than the BOM. 

So rather than looking for Zarahemla, I marvel at Lehi's visions, King Benjamin's address, the epistles of Alma and Mormon, and so many more. And if you are looking for validation of Joseph Smith's calling in the BOM, instead of wondering where the horse bones are, read say, a 50 page section of the book, read it again, and ask yourself if a 19th century American dirt farmer with a 3rd grade education could have pulled that off. It may not convince you, but it should be sufficient to get you curious about the rest of the book.

Lot's of people, sincere and otherwise, have said and continue to say that God talked to them. How many have produced a work like the BOM? The list is short. In fact, I can't find any others. And since the book exists, if you want to dismiss Joseph Smith and Mormonism, you have to deal with it.

I also found it interesting that you referenced Mount Nebo and Moses. There is absolutely no evidence for an Israelite exodus from Egypt to Caanan via the Sinai, or that a man named Moses who was a prince of Egypt but then led an exodus ever existed. Secular historians consider it a fable. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just like there was a city called Zarahemla. We just don't have all the information on either one yet. 

[mormonnewb]

If they had been 19-yo pansexuals with extensive experience going back to when they were 15 would you have trusted them? Just kind of weird that you equate virginity with untrustworthy.

Pansexual? That was a new one for me. I had to Google it. Who knew that I'd learn new sexual terminology from The Nehor? Hehe

To be clear, I don't equate virginity with untrustworthiness. I equate it with naïveté and innocence. They are wonderful qualities but not what I seek out in a search for "truth."

[The Nehor]

Pansexual? That was a new one for me. I had to Google it. Who knew that I'd learn new sexual terminology from The Nehor? Hehe

To be clear, I don't equate virginity with untrustworthiness. I equate it with naïveté and innocence. They are wonderful qualities but not what I seek out in a search for "truth."

 

I agree that 19 year olds can be naive but I think it is somewhat creepy that you think sex somehow mitigates naivete and innocence. I once read someone saying that sex was becoming the mystery religion of our day. I thought that was crazy talk. I guess I was wrong. Some people see it like that.

[CV75]

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?

I decided to join the Church because I prayed about which church I should join (the reply to which was, “The LDS Church, the true Church.”). I didn’t know much about Joseph Smith except that he too prayed about which church to join. 3 months later, I read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover, prayed about it, and received a witness of its truthfulness. Almost 5 years later I joined the Church. I didn’t think about it much, but I think if I were asked, I would say that I took the first and second witnesses as a confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I suppose I could have taken my first witness that the Church is true as confirmation both that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true, but in reading the Book of Mormon, I felt obligated to pray about it when I came across Moroni 10:3-5. I never sensed a similar obligation to pray about Joseph Smith.

So I think you could have just prayed about joining the Church, or about Joseph Smith, or about the Book or Mormon, or anything else. I’m not sure it would have mattered as long as you connected with God, were baptized and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the covenants, and continued to receive confirmations that your life is moving in accordance with the Lord’s will. That is the important issue in my opinion and experience, not which point of testimony spurs us to join the Church.

I suspect that the invitation to pray for a confirmation of the Book of Mormon for confirmation of Joseph Smith as a prophet is used to define for the investigator some spiritual basis for joining the Church. It is one of many ways to get people to think about the importance of receiving a spiritual witness that results in a commitment to join the Church. But as you can see, just about any witness about the Restored Church will “verify” that Joseph Smith was a prophet, including one about him directly.

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?

I think the importance of the Book of Mormon has been laid out in other posts. If you have received a spiritual witness of it, does that not speak to its importance (otherwise God would not have given you a witness)? And if it is so important, isn’t an abiding testimony of it (and applying the principles found therein) essential for keeping the faith, such that losing faith in it leads to leaving the covenants and blessings we receive in joining the Church? And since it is so important, isn’t treating it lightly (writing off it and its adherents) a relatively easy thing to do?

[CV75]

Okay. So I'm starting to see why we need the Book of Mormon but I'm still not convinced that we should LEAD with it, given the difficulties with its historicity.

We lead with it (and should) because the Lord almost immediately rewards the faith of those who read it with an open heart and mind. This is how the prepared (which is how I read "elect") are gathered as qucikly and eficiently as possible. This very purpose is found throughout the verses in the book as the very purpose of the book itself!

For the rest who come across it, the book represents up-front the requirement (heavy for some) to invest faith in a few spiritual things to overcome the barriers of innumerable non-spiritual perspectives.

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

I'm working on your other question, and that will take a while to write. Here, what you just said is one of the major reasons I converted. Mormons live out the admonitions of Jesus Christ better than any other church I have ever experienced full stop.

[Kenngo1969]

You're surprised that someone would turn to the Internet to research FACTUAL information? Really? If I told you about the lost city of Atlantis, would you just take my word for it? Perhaps, it's just me but just because two 19-yo virgins tell me something is true, doesn't make it so.

And as for all of those "cowards" online, you know that you are referring to the Smithsonian and archeologist at just about every major university in the country, right? And while I know that I'm absolutely NUTS for trusting in the opinions of those with expertise and experience in the matter, there are at least two to three dozen people like me out there. So for the empirically-minded, the BOM might not be the best evidence for the restoration.

With due respect, I think you assume entirely too much.  Few archaeologists, anthropologists, and those who study similar relevant disciplines "at every major university in the country" have even bothered to attempt to evaluate the Book of Mormon on its own terms.  That being the case, I'm puzzled as to how you arrived at the conclusion that, therefore, they have "expertise and experience" in the matter.

 

And more than a few "empirically-minded" people (and they might even be more "empirically-minded" than you ) have come to the conclusion that they can't quite dismiss the Book of Mormon so blithely.  Some examples on this very Board are John and Curtis Sorenson, Brant Gardner, and others.  And whether or not they believe the Book of Mormon is precisely what it claims to be, there are non-LDS scholars who have accepted the Book of Mormon on its own terms and have found more "there" there than you suggest: Margaret Barker and Jan Shipps come immediately to mind.  

 

Further, even interpreting the evidence in a light most favorable to you (that is to say, giving you an enormous benefit of the doubt), at bottom, you appear to be falling pray to the fallacy expressed in the old adage, "Absence of evidence [even granting such absence for the sake of this discussion] is not evidence of absence."

 

P.S.:  And while the reasons why might be beyond the scope of this discussion, without the Book of Mormon, main-branch Mormonism would be simply another flavor of Protestantism.  While I'm disinclined to cast aspersions (and therefore I cite this group merely for the sake of example) one need look no further than the Community of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) for clues as to what might happen to main-branch Mormonism if it were to deemphasize or disavow the Book of Mormon.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Grudunza]

Others have already covered other important things, but to me it seems particularly relevant to our general time, with growing atheism, terrorism, the hope of Christ's return, etc.

And it is a very tangible product of our religion. Most new faiths merely describe a difference of theological particulars. The BoM is a significant piece of new scripture, the very existence of which demands questions of how and why it exists. Different people will come to different conclusions about that, but by pointing people to the BoM it kind of forces the issue... if you get a sense that this book is what it claims to be, then JS really is a modern prophet of The Lord and all else follows from there as far as joining the Church and D&C and so forth.

I can see where pointing newbies, er, investigators, to the BoM can be daunting, though. 1st Nephi is a pretty smooth read, but it gets long and more difficult after that. I certainly didn't read the whole book through before praying about it, but I had gained enough of a sense of what it was and its place in the context of things to be able to pray for confirmation of whether to join the church. And the BoM was definitely an important part of that for me.