UtahTexan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help". One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when. Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I would say that BOM history is less important to my testimony than Biblical history. But at the same time, being able to show the restoration of the Book of Mormon is more important than that of the Bible.
Mystery Meat Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon I think is debatable. I don't think it is essential, although I personally believe it is true (both from a historical and from a principled perspective). A testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith as the prophet of this dispensation on the other hand I think is non-negotiable, at least as far as qualifying for a temple recommend and perhaps more importantly (as weird as that sounds) to find favor with God. Joseph Smith wasn't just a good man or a man with many weaknesses (he was both). He was a special witness of JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, your Savior and mine. I offer it as my belief that no man or woman in our dispensation can truly come to know the Savior without knowing and believing the principals as taught by His mouthpiece in our dispensation: Joseph Smith. 1
strappinglad Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 What is ' critical' then? Most members could use the word believe instead of know and be justified. I ' know ' the sun is shining even when it is dark. I don't 'know' that I will see it shining tomorrow. I believe I will. If one does not 'know' or even 'believe' that Joseph was a prophet, then the approach is to 'hope' that he was and proceed from there to grow.
Coreyb Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help". One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when. Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.Bill Reel is on this board as DBmormon I believe
WysteriaBlue Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Dear Country Boy.... I have found that many of the principles of the Plan of Salvation, Godhood, the Apostasy/Restoration of the Priesthood, etc...are further edified and explained in the BoM in ways that sometimes the Bible is not as clear or explained in the same way... I am learning and ASKING....it seems that a belief in the BoM would have to be essential to many of the theological teachings of the LDS church as an adjunct and companion to the scriptures and other teachings. May I add these to your list of questions to the members of the discussion board and elders and leaders of the church that are responding to you? I think it may be similar and part of what you are asking too...if not...just ignore.respectfully,wb
Mystery Meat Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Additionally, I really hope Bill didn't say that belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet wasn't essential. That is troubling. It is not only essential, it is critical. I don't think (in fact I am pretty darn sure) that this is not what the GAs mean when they talk about big tents and such. 1
UtahTexan Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 I am pretty sure he did. I will go back and listen again. I might have misunderstood
Garden Girl Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Additionally, I really hope Bill didn't say that belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet wasn't essential. That is troubling. It is not only essential, it is critical. I don't think (in fact I am pretty darn sure) that this is not what the GAs mean when they talk about big tents and such. Hello CountryBoy... (smiles here) I agree with lvjd66's statement above... I hope that's not what Reel (DBMormon) said... If we as Latter Day Saints do not believe that Joseph was a prophet, and the doctrines he introduced/restored are not correct, even necessary, then we could very well go on down the street and attend any number of the other Christian faiths to be found in our communities... It is the embracing of our doctrines, beginning with prophets and apostles, that set us apart... and continue for instance, with the Plan of Happiness/Salvation and it's unique perspective when compared to other Christian views... or our temple ordinances and our perspective on marriage and family... There are those who admire and respect LDS as a people, and our standards as being highly desirable, and who might enjoy attending... but our meetings, for instance when I attended Sacrament Meeting this morning, are reflections of our particular perspective and our approach to life in general... even our very purpose... and these things all go back to Joseph as a prophet... GG Edited October 13, 2014 by Garden Girl 3
3DOP Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) No. As a Catholic who would imagine himself as an LDS, I wholeheartedly disagree. With regard to Joseph Smith, unless he was a prophet, you can forget about an LDS "Restoration". If you want to be another Protestant group...okay. But forget about one true church that is LDS if Joseph Smith is just some guy. Edited October 13, 2014 by 3DOP 4
Mystery Meat Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 No. As a Catholic who would imagine himself as an LDS, I wholeheartedly disagree. With regard to Joseph Smith, unless he was a prophet, you can forget about an LDS "Restoration". If you want to be another Protestant group...okay. But forget about one true church that is LDS if Joseph Smith is just some guy. Thank you Rory. There is no need for an LDS faith if Joseph Smith is not a/the prophet. Even if you don't share the belief, you understand it better than a growing number of members of the LDS faith.
Mystery Meat Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I will say belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet does not mean you have to believe he was perfect or without his faults. You wanna believe that polygamy was a mistake, or polyandry, or whatever else...fine. But belief that Joseph Smith was being guided by the Lord Jesus Christ in the necessities of the gospel is essential. No Doubt whatsoever.
smac97 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help". One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when. Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.I do not think that "belief in The Book of Mormon as history" is important in and of itself. It is an abridgment. It is probably not free of cultural bias. It is missing all sort of important pieces of "history." Most of all, it is not intended to be a history book as much as a religious book.However, I think the underlying issue is about historicity, that the events in the text actually, really happened (even though they may not be perfectly and accurately recorded in all respects). Some folks (including, I suspect, Bill Reel) want to propagate the idea that The Book of Mormon can be a work of fiction, a fabrication, that there never was an actual person named Lehi, or that he and his family migrated to the Americas, etc.If that is the issue, then historicity is, I think, very important. I refer you to Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and published by the FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute)? A review of it is available online here. Here are a few comments from the reviewer, Keith Lane (emphases added): It was probably inevitable that a need for a book like this would arise....It can only be expected, then, that such secularized scholarship would find its way into studies of Latter-day Saint scripture, belief, and practice. A recent trend among a minority of writers has been to give an alternative reading to Latter-day scripture, seeing, for example, the Book of Mormon as an elaborate parable or as a book containing a meaningful ethics or theology, but whose characters and events have no basis in history and whose origin is not what Joseph Smith claimed it was.Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures responds to the assertion that Latter-day Saint scripture could be in some sense meaningful even if the events and people mentioned in it were not actually real. The resounding response from those whose essays appear in this collection is that it is crucial for Latter-day Saints to hold to the historicity-historical authenticity-of scripture, while at the same time insisting that scripture is more than mere history. And the clear warning is that blindly following naturalism and the Enlightenment when it comes to thinking about Latter-day Saint scripture will lead to a diminished faith for Latter-day Saints.Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, this book contains articles by Elder Alexander B. Morrison, James E. Faulconer, John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, Paul Y. Hoskisson, Kent P. Jackson, Robert J. Matthews, Louis Midgley, Robert L. Millet, Daniel C. Peterson, John S. Tanner, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks....Three of the articles (those by Jackson, Midgley, and Oaks) deal directly with the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon - that is, whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and was received as Joseph claimed it was or, if its historicity is in doubt, whether instead it could still be "true" in some moral or theological sense if its historical contents were rejected or explained away....With characteristic insight, Elder Oaks points out what is at stake here: the foundation of faith for Latter-day Saints. "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived" (p. 244). The other authors who deal exclusively with the Book of Mormon offer similar perspectives.In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson reviews carefully the witnesses to the historicity of the Book of Mormon....Having reviewed Joseph's claims and what the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Three and Eight Witnesses say about the book, Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" (p.137). All of this comes to a question of what one could trust if there is not a historical grounding for this book. Jackson directs his focus on the crux of the matter: Can the Book of Mormon indeed be "true," in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events? (pp. 137-38)The strength of Jackson's article is in its careful and detailed reasoning about the issue and why Latter-day Saints must stand by the traditional account of the Book of Mormon....Midgley is rightly impatient with some Mormon philosophers and historians who urge Latter-day Saints to move away from embarrassing claims of visions, appearances, translation of plates, restorations of keys, and so on, toward a respectable theology. Such thinkers want "to make a distinction between [the Book of Mormon's] historicity and its prophetic teachings" (p. 161)....Paul Y. Hoskisson deals with the need for historicity, both in developing faith and in establishing obligation. Hoskisson sets out to show why critics "are wrong when they contend that historicity is not necessary to develop scriptural faith" and why it is right to maintain that "the historicity of certain central, scriptural events is necessary for there to be substance to our faith" (p. 101).Before turning his attention to the relation of history and historical obligation, Hoskisson clarifies several things with respect to the issue of historicity and faith for the Latter-day Saints. First, "we believe that central scriptural events must be historical, but we do not require historical evidence in order to develop our faith" (p. 101). Second, though Latter-day Saints maintain the historicity of scripture, "we have no need to assert the inerrancy or all-inclusive nature of scripture, and therefore we do not feel the need to defend every tittle, jot, word, or phrase" (p. 103). Third, Latter-day Saints do not need to "accept or reject in its totality the historicity of all scripture," though it is clear that some parts of scripture "require historicity in order to add content to our faith" (p. 103)....Scripture's historicity is bound up, Hoskisson argues, with historical obligation. For instance, if Jesus was not actually baptized, then no requirement can be laid on us. "If, on the other hand, Christ Himself was baptized, then we cannot escape its necessity and must also be baptized" (p. 113). Similar claims can be made about other events from the many acts of Christ, to the covenant made with Abraham and the sacrifice required of him, to the death and resurrection of Christ. Take away their historicity and you take away the obligation that comes with them. At the same time, such a move takes away that which gives "content in our doctrine, substance to our faith, and reason for our hope" (p. 116). My sense is that the historicity of The Book of Mormon text is inextricably interwoven with its status as scripture, such that to reject the former also requires a rejection of the latter. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 13, 2014 by smac97 4
Kenngo1969 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 In my mind, an ahistorical Book of Mormon actually poses more questions than it solves, even if one grants that it is inspired on some level. (Though, as Smac97 points out, the Book of Mormon may be imperfect as history, in the same way a personal history you or I might write would be imperfect.) Joseph Smith and others who had roles in the Restoration claim to have interacted with people and objects which were part of the Book of Mormon narrative. If the events described in that narrative didn't actually occur much as the Book of Mormon says they did, then it is as though the Lord said, "Let's see. I'll need some ad hoc plates (not only for the Book of Mormon, but also for other records), an ad hoc sword of Laban, a holographic Angel Moroni ..." To each, his or her own; there certainly are faithful people who subscribe to the "inspired fiction" theory and, while I don't want to cast aspersions on my sincere brothers and sisters who believe differently on that score, I think such a theory concedes entirely too much. Do I have questions about certain aspects of LDS history? Sure. Might I simply have a blind spot because I have ancestors who crossed the plains with handcarts, and one who was a close associate of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Perhaps. Does such a pedigree play a role in how I view those events? Very likely. But putting all of that aside, once I start trying to ascribe naturalistic explanations even to otherwise-far-fetched events, I'm left with even more questions than I would have if I accept the accounts of these events as those who were involved delivered them. My $0.02, actual value much less.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 ...............................................One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough.Semantically wise. After all, people use such terms rather loosely, so that there is often not a dime's worth of difference between them. But see Alma 32. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet.One can certainly build a religion entirely upon good principles, such as Be kind to your neighbor, Do unto others, etc. But one does finally have to come to grips with fundamental issues. Otherwise, one's organized church might just wither away and die -- as the RLDS faith is doing even as we speak -- which is seen as a good thing by those who believe that organized religion is a problem which creates more problems. However, the Bible itself is up for grabs, since it is equally vulnerable to questions about the historicity of its miraculous epic tales, ending with the calamitous execution and resurrection of a god. Secularism raises serious questions about all manner of supernatural and dogmatic claims, the only defense being the possible authenticity of some other witness. The Book of Mormon is that second witness, first because it comes to us by preposterous means, in modern times. Second because it can be verified by secular means to be descriptive of actual civilizations in the New World. And third because that is impossible, and because it is impossible yet true, it can only buttress the extraordinary and impossible claims of the Bible -- which comes to us by ordinary, secular means of transmission. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain.Of course, Bill is correct. However, as Mike Quinn has rightly said, the unexamined faith is not worth having, and any faith crises will be painful. By its very nature. Such challenges are necessary and essential. One finally has to grow up and accept the challenges. Others should generously offer helping hands, but one is finally alone in the dark with his own challenge. The victory can only be won at a cost. Otherwise there is no victory. Again, see Alma 32. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when................................................................Bill has a good program, and I have listened to some of his podcasts. I am not familiar with this particular one, so am not sure how good his points were. All of us humans are fallible and stumble along the road of life. I know I have aplenty. I am sorry to hear that some people gave you a hard time of it. However, they may well have felt threatened by your own faith crisis, and may have had to deal with simultaneous crises of their own. Generosity and kindness go a long way in such encounters (from all involved), and we should not make impossible demands upon each other. There will always be people who leave the LDS Church, just as they leave other churches. That is a natural consequence of seeking to find one's own comfort level. We should all wish each other the best, regardless of which religious group we are involved with. We need to be good neighbors, regardless of religious affiliation. 2
The Nehor Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help". One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when. Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.I think it is important to know. Belief is a good place to start on that road and I and many other have gone from there to knowledge.If the Book of Mormon is not true and Jospeh Smith is not a prophet it might be a fun social club but I would discard the church. It asks too much unless the promised rewards are real.I think the only way to overcome a faith crisis is to be belittled and shamed into realizing how wrong you are. What other alternative is there?
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Is the value of Socrates philosophy dependent on Socrates having really existed and uttering those exact sentences? If Einstein's work was actually authored by Ferdinand Smiggleforth III, and "Einstein" was a cool pen name, is it "false"? If Shakespeare's works were actually written by Francis Bacon, should we ignore their artistry?
WysteriaBlue Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I think it is important to know. Belief is a good place to start on that road and I and many other have gone from there to knowledge.If the Book of Mormon is not true and Jospeh Smith is not a prophet it might be a fun social club but I would discard the church. It asks too much unless the promised rewards are real.I think the only way to overcome a faith crisis is to be belittled and shamed into realizing how wrong you are. What other alternative is there? Nehor,Do you really believe that is the only way to overcome a faith crisis? Your answer sort of surprised me.Respectfully,wb
smac97 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 A few more thoughts: 1. For those who disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon (or who believe it is dismissable), I ask this: Elder Oaks apparently thinks so: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." So can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save. 2. Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But they are not "essential" at all. Plenty of people get by just fine without them. All of us will end up in the Kingdom of God, or not, without any regard to these books. But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view: THE BOOK OF MORMON AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON A person in the Rejecting Historicity Camp must state that there was no such person named Mormon. He never existed. So Joseph Smith lied or was deluded when he taught anything to the contrary. UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI Again, no dice. There was no Lehi, hence no Nephi, hence no Nephites or records of the Nephites. Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics. Oh, and also, the Three Witnesses lied when they testified that "that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Either that, or God sent an angel with fake plates to deceive the Witnesses and the millions of people who have read their testimony. Conspiratorial lying and deception on a grand scale is, sadly, the only option for people who reject the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites— No and no. There were no Nephites or Lamanites. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, these are lies and deceptions. Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; More lies. There were no Lamanites. and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, More lies. From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, Joseph Smith or one of his contemporaries wrote the book. Not Mormon or the Nephite prophets. and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation— From an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view, The Book of Mormon is a fraud and a lie, and hence could not be written "by the spirit of prophecy." Written and sealed up, Another lie. There were no Nephites, ergo no Nephite records, hence nothing was sealed up. You get the idea. Reading the Title Page and trying to reconcile it with the I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view is an exercise in futility. It cannot be done. If The Book of Mormon is not a historical text, if it is not describing historical events, then one cannot proceed to affirm the most important of its never-happened-because-The-Book-of-Mormon-is-not-a-historical-text events, namely, "that Christ visited the Americas." Thanks, -Smac 3
The Nehor Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Is the value of Socrates philosophy dependent on Socrates having really existed and uttering those exact sentences? If Einstein's work was actually authored by Ferdinand Smiggleforth III, and "Einstein" was a cool pen name, is it "false"? If Shakespeare's works were actually written by Francis Bacon, should we ignore their artistry?If Socrates claimed it came from God and then we found out Socrates never lived it might be wise and good advice but I will not revere it as divine. There is something different about claiming something comes from God. At that point I want to know how.The Church and the gospel ask more then Socrates ever did.Nehor,Do you really believe that is the only way to overcome a faith crisis? Your answer sort of surprised me.Respectfully,wbSorry, that was a joke. Probably should have added an emoticon. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) If Socrates claimed it came from God and then we found out Socrates never lived it might be wise and good advice but I will not revere it as divine. There is something different about claiming something comes from God. At that point I want to know how.The Church and the gospel ask more then Socrates ever did.So in the case of Deutero Isaiah - was whoever wrote that a "prophet?" How do we know that besides spiritually?Did Job actually exist, or should we throw it out? Should we throw out all the biblical books from disputed authors? Was the Book of Abraham really written by Abraham- and can that be shown historically? Just for the record, of course I believe Joseph was a prophet and the BOM is the word of God. But I don't think that historicity has anything to do with that fact. In principle, if the Book of Mormon was written last week by a guy named Fred Schwartz, I would think that good old Fred was a prophet who channeled the word of God. I don't see the fact that it is old, historic or not historic has anything to do with anything. Edited October 13, 2014 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 So in the case of Deutero Isaiah - was whoever wrote that a "prophet?" How do we know that besides spiritually?Did Job actually exist, or should we throw it out? Should we throw out all the biblical books from disputed authors? Was the Book of Abraham really written by Abraham- and can that be shown historically? Just for the record, of course I believe Joseph was a prophet and the BOM is the word of God. But I don't think that historicity has anything to do with that fact. In principle, if the Book of Mormon was written last week by a guy named Fred Schwartz, I would think that good old Fred was a prophet who channeled the word of God. I don't see the fact that it is old, historic or not historic has anything to do with anything.I know Isaiah was inspired primarily because of the Book of Mormon. I suspect Job might be loosely based on real events but doubt it is a historical record. I believe the Book of Abraham to be inspired because I believe Joseph was a prophet.None of those books claimed to be hand-delivered by an angel to an established historical person who testified to the fact. If I found out It was written by Fred I would punch Fred in the face for wasting my time.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I was listening to a podcast called "Mormon Discussions". The specific Podcast is called "15 Ways to Help". One of the points was that it is not important to "know". "Belief" is good enough. Another point was that believing in the B of M as history is not critical, nor is believing that Joseph was a prophet. Another point was that when people have a faith crisis, do not belittle them and cause them pain. All 15 points were really good. Had members acted like he suggests, I might have never left the Church way back when. Anyway...my question...do y'all agree with him? I think the guy who does the podcast is named Bill Reel.It is not important to know if it is true, though I assume it is. It is just as wrong as questioning the Bible. It is fruitless. When you question are you trying to find a way to get off the hook for your sin? What is your objective? The more important question is to ask ourselves is: how can I use the lessons taught in both books to more fully please God?
UtahTexan Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 I suppose that, for me, comparing the Bible with the Book of Mormon does not work for me. I can go to the places the Bible mentions, so it does, right or wrong, add credibility. One can live the precepts and teachings of the Book of Mormon and believe, thereby, in God. One does not have to believe in it historically. It seems that too much has been disproven. But, I absolutely love the LDS teachings. I watch GC. Sigh......
Recommended Posts