Significant removal from Come Follow Me 2024

[TheTanakas]

Why did the church make this significant removal from the "Introductory Pages of 
the Book of Mormon"?  Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

This used to be in the 2020 version.

The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s plan to help His children become exalted, 
as He is, and experience the joy He feels (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

If you want to understand the plan of salvation, there’s no better book to read than 
the Book of Mormon.

The 2024 version's pdf is here.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

if you gain a testimony and attend the class then you can find out for yourself and that is significant

[Rain]

Maybe because, depending on how you look at it, the "plan of salvation" isn't in the Book of Mormon? At least not clearly enough to be the best way to understand it.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Rain

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Why did the church make this significant removal from the "Introductory Pages of 
the Book of Mormon"?  Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

This used to be in the 2020 version.

The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s plan to help His children become exalted, 
as He is, and experience the joy He feels (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

If you want to understand the plan of salvation, there’s no better book to read than 
the Book of Mormon.

The 2024 version's pdf is here.

Please put the two salient paragraphs / statements side by side -- not sure what you're referring to.

Maybe this year, "less is more" as far as suggesting what to look for and expect from the scriptural text. 2020 seemingly encouraged a focus on the plan; I bet 2024 focuses on the implementation, considering the direction CFM is taking.

Edited January 6, 2024 by CV75

[InCognitus]

56 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Why did the church make this significant removal from the "Introductory Pages of 
the Book of Mormon"?  Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

This used to be in the 2020 version.

The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s plan to help His children become exalted, 
as He is, and experience the joy He feels (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

If you want to understand the plan of salvation, there’s no better book to read than 
the Book of Mormon.

The 2024 version's pdf is here.

Given that the Come Follow Me manuals were completely redesigned this year to accommodate all age groups into one manual, there should be no surprise that there are massive changes.  This should be a fun year to identify what's been left out from prior teaching materials and to try to imply a sinister reason for the removal.  It will keep some people busy, I'm sure.

Or instead, we could just learn from the lesson materials, and find that the same principles of "the great plan of happiness" are found all through the Book of Mormon and in the lesson materials.

[webbles]

The old Come Follow Me manual for individuals had 426 pages for lessons.  The new one has 264 pages for lessons.  So there will be a lot of things "missing".

[Kenngo1969]

The manual is simply a tool, a lens that, hopefully, helps one get the best possible view the Scriptures.  By far, the best "manual" anyone could use, as guided by the Holy Spirit, would be the Scriptures themselves!  But, no, no: Let's just ignore that in favor of straining on the gnat of what has been left in, and what has been removed from, the manual!

My personal study ... as guided by the Holy Spirit, hopefully ... went in a different direction years ago, and I haven't really incorporated the manual into my personal study since then.  During our family Scripture study, my mother usually is "otherwise occupied" (multitasking), and the reading skills of my father, never the best reader to begin with, have, with his advancing age, deteriorated.  So, it falls to me to guide the discussion.  We do use the lessons as templates to frame our study, and we do refer to the manual along with other resources, but the Scriptures are the main text.

 

[rpn]

I'd take it to mean that the language omission has more to do with reducing pages and words and ink, and nothing to do with the value or contents of the Book of Mormon itself.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, webbles said:

The old Come Follow Me manual for individuals had 426 pages for lessons.  The new one has 264 pages for lessons.  So there will be a lot of things "missing".

What webbles said.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Maybe because, depending on how you look at it, the "plan of salvation" isn't in the Book of Mormon? At least not clearly enough to be the best way to understand it.

I thought this article on the plan of salvation and the BOM was interesting.  

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-21-no-1-2020/plan-salvation-book-mormon#:~:text=The Book of Mormon prophets,%2C most frequently%2C of redemption.

I especially thought this part was interesting because I had never thought about the difference between the plan of salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quote

 

Following the general tendency of other Christian writers, some Latter-day Saint authors merge the gospel of Jesus Christ with the teachings of the plan of salvation in their discourse, preferring not to draw a distinction between the two. But the Book of Mormon writers kept the distinction clearly in mind. Nephite prophets consistently referred to the means by which men and women in this mortal existence could qualify for eternal life as the gospel or doctrine of Christ, the way, the path, or the word.[10] On multiple occasions, they explicitly cited Christ’s gospel teaching to them that any person who would (1) trust in Christ, (2) sincerely repent of their sins by covenanting to follow his straight and narrow path, and (3) witness to the Father that they had so covenanted by being baptized in water, would (4) receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, which would bring with it the remission of sins, a testimony of the Father and the Son, and daily direction as to what they should do. All who would (5) endure to the end of their lives in following these commands of the Lord would (6) receive eternal life at the Judgment Day. In these presentations, they typically referred to key elements of the plan of salvation as context, to explain what the Father and the Son have done and will do to make salvation possible for all those who will embrace their gospel.

The Book of Mormon provides multiple passages in which the same clear and multifeatured doctrine is presented as an invitation to all who wish to be saved. It begins with Nephi in the first generation when he reports a vision given at different times both to him and to his father, Lehi—in which he was taught the gospel by the Father and the Son—each of whom he quotes three times.[11] The same gospel was taught twice centuries later by the resurrected Jesus Christ when he appeared to the Nephite people.[12] This gospel enumerates specific things a convert can do that will lead to eternal life.

The plan of salvation, on the other hand, describes the works of the Father and the Son that make eternal life possible and available to all humankind. In contrast with the more formulaic presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is repeated throughout the Book of Mormon text, the Nephite prophets tended to have their own approaches and even vocabulary for explaining different features of the plan of salvation. The following sections of this paper will offer an examination of the principal passages on the plan of salvation while emphasizing elements of the Nephite teaching that may be unique.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

The old Come Follow Me manual for individuals had 426 pages for lessons.  The new one has 264 pages for lessons.  So there will be a lot of things "missing".

Good!

More money available to buy real estate! 

But wait! The new book is much fatter than the old! You tricked us with those words "for lessons"!

The kiddie stuff is ALSO "for lessons!"

Dang! LESS money for real estate!

I mean let's keep our priorities in mind here...!  😏

Edited January 6, 2024 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Why did the church make this significant removal from the "Introductory Pages of 
the Book of Mormon"?  Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

This used to be in the 2020 version.

The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s plan to help His children become exalted, 
as He is, and experience the joy He feels (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

If you want to understand the plan of salvation, there’s no better book to read than 
the Book of Mormon.

The 2024 version's pdf is here.

In reality, on the surface the Book of Mormon appears to present the traditional “one heaven, one hell” perspective on the plan of salvation. But if one combines the Book of Mormon’s presentation of the plan of salvation with Doctrine and Covenants Sections 19, 76, 88 and 138, along with Moses 7 in the Pearl of Great Price, one will get a much more complete view of the plan of salvation than one can get from reading the Book of Mormon alone. In fact, it’s for the very reason that the Book of Mormon presents a less complete view of the Lord’s merciful plan of salvation that the aforementioned chapters of scripture I mentioned were added to the Standard Works. The prophet Mormon himself admits that his abridgment (our present-day Book of Mormon) contains a much more basic explanation of the plan of salvation than the far more complete plan of salvation the resurrected Savior taught to the Nephites. It’s therefore quite likely that the reason why the change you reference was made is because the statement is not truly accurate. Here’s what Mormon had to say when he wanted to include the more complete version of the plan of salvation in his abridgment, but the Lord forbade him…

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things (i.e. D&C 19, 76, 88, 138, etc) be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

12 Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord (3 Nephi 26)

 

 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Why did the church make this significant removal from the "Introductory Pages of 
the Book of Mormon"?  Does this mean the Book of Mormon is no longer the best book 
to understand the plan of salvation?

This used to be in the 2020 version.

The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s plan to help His children become exalted, 
as He is, and experience the joy He feels (see 2 Nephi 2:25–26).

If you want to understand the plan of salvation, there’s no better book to read than 
the Book of Mormon.

The 2024 version's pdf is here.

I've heard the old complaint about the Book of Mormon that it doesn't actually contain the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because there's nothing in there about the Word of Wisdom, temple work, patriarchal blessings, and so on.

Except that those things are not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I thought that Evangelical Christians understood that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was what Joseph Smith said about it:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

And all of those fundamental principles, in its fullness, is in the Book of Mormon. Including the effects on mankind of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

The "Plan of Salvation," on the other hand, includes the Gospel, but adds to it the eschatology of the human race. Among other things, Paul the Apostle identified the three degrees of glory, Peter described the work the Savior did in the post-mortality spirit world, and John the Beloved described the last days. But these things are appendages to the Gospel, which is that Christ died for our sins, atoning and justifying for all who would believe on his name and repent, and was resurrected, leading to the resurrection of us all.

So it's perfectly reasonable that they corrected what was a small misunderstanding.

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I especially thought this part was interesting because I had never thought about the difference between the plan of salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yep! 

That was something that occurred to me a few years ago, and was a bit of a surprise. It is easy to be humble when I realize that I don't yet know it all. I was reading in Grant Hardy's Annotated Book of Mormon last night, and learned that Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon starting from 1 Nephi all the way to Moroni, but after the 116 pages were lost, he picked up with Words of Mormon, continued until Moroni, and only then went back to the Small Plates and translated from 1 Nephi to Omni.

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That was something that occurred to me a few years ago, and was a bit of a surprise. It is easy to be humble when I realize that I don't yet know it all. I was reading in Grant Hardy's Annotated Book of Mormon last night, and learned that Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon starting from 1 Nephi all the way to Moroni, but after the 116 pages were lost, he picked up with Words of Mormon, continued until Moroni, and only then went back to the Small Plates and translated from 1 Nephi to Omni.

I don't think we know exactly when Words of Mormon was translated.  I've seen it put after the 116 pages are lost, after Moroni is finished but before 1 Nephi, and after Omni is finished.  Does Hardy mention any of those or just say that it was translated before Mosiah?

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think we know exactly when Words of Mormon was translated.  I've seen it put after the 116 pages are lost, after Moroni is finished but before 1 Nephi, and after Omni is finished.  Does Hardy mention any of those or just say that it was translated before Mosiah?

I may have misspoke on this. Here's the quote:

"It is also notable that when Smith resumed translating in April 1829, with Oliver Cowdery as his principal scribe, he continued from where he had left off, in the book of Mosiah, that is, with Mormon’s abridgment of the Large Plates, and then he completed the narrative through the book of Moroni. Only then did he turn to 1 Nephi and the rest of the Small Plates, with their account of the first centuries of Nephite history. This means that the narrative of the Book of Mormon was dictated out of chronological order, and the succession of internal books in every printed edition does not match the sequence in which Smith and Cowdery first produced the words. So there are two ways to track the development of storylines, theology, and phrasing through the Book of Mormon. This first is by chronological order, from 1 Nephi to Moroni, and the second is by dictation order, which starts in Mosiah, continues to the end of the book, returns to 1 Nephi, and then concludes with the Words of Mormon."

Which I think corresponds with what I said.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yep! 

That was something that occurred to me a few years ago, and was a bit of a surprise. It is easy to be humble when I realize that I don't yet know it all. I was reading in Grant Hardy's Annotated Book of Mormon last night, and learned that Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon starting from 1 Nephi all the way to Moroni, but after the 116 pages were lost, he picked up with Words of Mormon, continued until Moroni, and only then went back to the Small Plates and translated from 1 Nephi to Omni.

On reddit they're discussing what Grant Hardy told Jana Riess as far as the racism in the BoM. I guess it is racist, seems it's not a dark countenance now. 

Here's the quote from the link: https://religionnews.com/2024/01/04/juicing-up-your-book-of-mormon-reading-this-year-part-1-with-grant-hardy/

Sometimes we’re embarrassed by the Book of Mormon. We’re embarrassed by the lack of evidence for its historicity, by the racism and the absence of women, and about how it uses the King James Bible, particularly the New Testament. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are problematic, and I don’t think we should skip over those. Nephi had attitudes that we would regard as racist today. Apparently even prophets do not always live up to their ideals or to their revelations.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yep! 

That was something that occurred to me a few years ago, and was a bit of a surprise. It is easy to be humble when I realize that I don't yet know it all. I was reading in Grant Hardy's Annotated Book of Mormon last night, and learned that Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon starting from 1 Nephi all the way to Moroni, but after the 116 pages were lost, he picked up with Words of Mormon, continued until Moroni, and only then went back to the Small Plates and translated from 1 Nephi to Omni.

This is how I justified my recommendation to my children on their first solo read-through of the Book of Mormon to start with Mosiah.

Having been members their whole lives, they knew the story and structure sufficiently that they wouldn't be confused.  They could then start with the excellent mix of story and doctrine in Mosiah and Alma, and put off the most challenging stuff in 2 Nephi until later, when they were barreling full steam ahead towards completion.

I'm not sure that same approach would work for an adult convert reading it for the first time.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stargazer]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

On reddit they're discussing what Grant Hardy told Jana Riess as far as the racism in the BoM. I guess it is racist, seems it's not a dark countenance now. 

Here's the quote from the link: https://religionnews.com/2024/01/04/juicing-up-your-book-of-mormon-reading-this-year-part-1-with-grant-hardy/

Sometimes we’re embarrassed by the Book of Mormon. We’re embarrassed by the lack of evidence for its historicity, by the racism and the absence of women, and about how it uses the King James Bible, particularly the New Testament. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are problematic, and I don’t think we should skip over those. Nephi had attitudes that we would regard as racist today. Apparently even prophets do not always live up to their ideals or to their revelations.

Racism is the big bugaboo these days. Everything is racist. 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Racism is the big bugaboo these days. Everything is racist. 

No, not really. I just think it interesting that Hardy said this. Do you remember reading posts about racism in the BoM on this board? It was never mentioned that Nephi could be racist. 

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, not really. I just think it interesting that Hardy said this. Do you remember reading posts about racism in the BoM on this board? It was never mentioned that Nephi could be racist. 

It's been brought up. We've had some really acrimonious debates about this in the past. I've been hanging around this place for a really long time (since 2007), and it's been done to death. I remember someone making the rather extravagant claim that there was no racism in the world until white men invented it. 

And of course it's one of the talking points of anti-Mormon activists.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I may have misspoke on this. Here's the quote:

"It is also notable that when Smith resumed translating in April 1829, with Oliver Cowdery as his principal scribe, he continued from where he had left off, in the book of Mosiah, that is, with Mormon’s abridgment of the Large Plates, and then he completed the narrative through the book of Moroni. Only then did he turn to 1 Nephi and the rest of the Small Plates, with their account of the first centuries of Nephite history. This means that the narrative of the Book of Mormon was dictated out of chronological order, and the succession of internal books in every printed edition does not match the sequence in which Smith and Cowdery first produced the words. So there are two ways to track the development of storylines, theology, and phrasing through the Book of Mormon. This first is by chronological order, from 1 Nephi to Moroni, and the second is by dictation order, which starts in Mosiah, continues to the end of the book, returns to 1 Nephi, and then concludes with the Words of Mormon."

Which I think corresponds with what I said.

If you are interested, https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/when-pages-collide-dissecting-the-words-of-mormon/ is a paper talking about how the modern Words of Mormon might actually include a few verses from the original Book of Mosiah.  The basic premise is that verses 1-11 were what Mormon wrote in the Words of Mormon and versus 12-18 were from a page that Joseph and Martin had translated but Martin didn't take with him (as it would be the start of page 117).

They point out that in the Printer's manuscript (we don't have the Original for these pages), it says "Chapter 3" at the beginning of our current Mosiah and Oliver crosses it out to change it to "Chapter 1".  Oliver also added "Book of Mosiah" to the manuscript ( https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/121 ).  So we know that we are missing the actual start of the Book of Mosiah and that is because it was in the 116 lost pages.

[teddyaware]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, not really. I just think it interesting that Hardy said this. Do you remember reading posts about racism in the BoM on this board? It was never mentioned that Nephi could be racist. 

The following verses from the Book of Mormon are found in 2 Nephi 4. In these passages the prophet Lehi solemnly warns Laman that unless he repents a curse from God will inevitably come upon him and his posterity (similar warnings of the same impending curse are are found in 2 Nephi 1). Please read the verses below and then kindly explain how the curse from God that came upon Laman, his posterity, and followers has anything in common with the ideas of racial superiority that characterize actual racism?

3 Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my firstborn, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.

4 For the Lord God hath said that: inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.

6 Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.

7 Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever. (2 Nephi 4)

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

No, not really. I just think it interesting that Hardy said this. Do you remember reading posts about racism in the BoM on this board? It was never mentioned that Nephi could be racist. 

I think it is more like prejudice between similar people like how some English might still have an old school stereotypic view of the Irish as violent and alcoholic when Nephi and others called the Lamanites lazy, idolatrous, etc.

 

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

On reddit they're discussing what Grant Hardy told Jana Riess as far as the racism in the BoM. I guess it is racist, seems it's not a dark countenance now. 

Here's the quote from the link: https://religionnews.com/2024/01/04/juicing-up-your-book-of-mormon-reading-this-year-part-1-with-grant-hardy/

Sometimes we’re embarrassed by the Book of Mormon. We’re embarrassed by the lack of evidence for its historicity, by the racism and the absence of women, and about how it uses the King James Bible, particularly the New Testament. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are problematic, and I don’t think we should skip over those. Nephi had attitudes that we would regard as racist today. Apparently even prophets do not always live up to their ideals or to their revelations.

There is a presumed racism, as people who've interpreted it so. There certainly seems to be a mutual prejudice in the narrative. But it's only a matter of race, firstly, if we presume there were other races in the land. Is Hardy saying Lamanites are in any way unrelated to Nephites in the book?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is more like prejudice between similar people like how some English might still have an old school stereotypic view of the Irish as violent and alcoholic when Nephi and others called the Lamanites lazy, idolatrous, etc.

Like Jews and Samaritans, or the Sunni and Shia. ("See those other guys who we're mostly related to and mostly believe like we do? We hate them.")

Edited January 7, 2024 by Pyreaux