- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So last Sunday during boring testimony meeting I was reading the Book of Mormon and the thought to read 3 Nephi chapter 11 popped into my head out of nowhere. I came across an interesting section that caught me by surprise. This is what Jesus tells the people when he arrives after resurrection almost first thing. So this is straight from the Lord’s mouth: 3 Nephi 11:31-40 with some notes and bolding added by me:
Quote:31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32
And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. So basically, this is what God told me to tell you guysQuote:
33And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.34
And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.pretty simple, believe in Jesus and be baptized and you get savedQuote:35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
Again, this is it, just as God and the Holy Ghost will confirmQuote:37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
Just to make sure you heard it, I will repeat it 2 more times, repent and get baptized and you inherit the kindgomQuote:39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40
And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.Anyone who tells you MORE or less than this is not of Jesus, but it of evil!So is Jesus saying that all this stuff we hear in GC and SM is not built upon his rock? I was pretty blown away by this and don’t know what to think. Is Jesus telling me that all this extra stuff I hear about at church is not of him?
I believe the BofM is a much more Protestant set of scripture than it is Mormon. It teaches as you state faith and repentance as core doctrines of salvation. Most of the teachings came out of beliefs of the 19th century. I believe Mormonism not so much contradicts it but Joseph just kept coming up with new concepts he wanted to introduce into the church. It is like he had this book and it was great for telling about the big picture of God, faith, repentance, baptism, etc. But how do you run a church with just that. You need organization and do’s and dont’s to keep people in line. Hence concepts like the priesthood are introduced to create a ruling authority. Then you have temples, missionaries to spread the word more and more until bam you are smack in the middle of polygamy. The church was just a natural progression of adding ideas and concepts as circumstances changed. So yes in a way Mormonism may contradict the BofM, but it contradicts a lot of things especially common sense. The Book of Mormon was not Joseph’s framework to build the church. But if it is all made up that explains it. I have heard but not sure how true it is that Joseph rarely quoted from the BofM or used it in teaching. Most everything was straight from his own thoughts.
There are a couple of things. First, it’s one of about four trinitarian passages in the Bom Quote:36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
Second, it’s an example of the tangled syntax that you can run into sometimes. It’s like the writer stumbles into a blind alley or a maze and wanders around for awhile before finding his way back out.
Quote:32
And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. Otherwise it’s pretty standard 1800s protestant thought.
Other than the parts of the BoM that not-so-subtly refer to Joseph Smith, 3 Nephi is my least favorite section. I realize that’s not a popular view amongst church members generally and that a lot of people find value there. I know that I’m supposed to get all excited about it, but I never could. When discussing my faith crisis with my SP a little over a year ago, one of his suggestions was “what about 3 Nephi?” I decided it best not to enter into a discussion about it, mostly because I didn’t know how to discuss it with someone who would have no idea what I was talking about. I realize that there is a lot of academic work linking 3 Nephi to 19th century protestantism, but for me it just plain never felt right. Ok so you guys are saying that the BoM is crap. If that is true, then the whole religion is a hoax. If the book is true, then it seems that it tells me that the rest of mormonism is superfluous. not a good day for Brown’s testimony. Brown wrote:Ok so you guys are saying that the BoM is crap. If that is true, then the whole religion is a hoax. If the book is true, then it seems that it tells me that the rest of mormonism is superfluous. not a good day for Brown’s testimony.
I apologize if
Icame across that way. I have serious questions about the BoM being exactlywhat it claims to be. I accept that I could be wrong, but that’s what works for me at present. I hope I will never refer to the BoM as crap, though, either directly or indirectly. Though I have a love/hate relationship with it, I credit it with how I came to have a testimony, such as it is. I believe that many parts of it are inspired, and that I cangrow closer to God by reading it. (I just had a Euell Gibbons moment … “many part are edible!”). Making this seeming contradiction work is what this website (and all of my current spiritual exertions) is all about for me. I see your dilemma regarding the verses you pointed out and the present-day church. I say add it to your list of things that don’t seem to make sense at the moment. Concentrate on what
doesmake sense, what doesfeel good and right, and put the rest aside. At least that’s what I’m trying to do. But … Quote:39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
I think I could easily make a case for the church’s orthodox teachings as “[building] upon my rock”, and therefore not necessarily contrary to Jesus’ teaching in these verses.
Brown wrote:…3 Nephi 11:31-40 with some notes and bolding added by me:
Quote:40 And
whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. So
is Jesus saying that all this stuff we hear in GC and SM is not built upon his rock? I was pretty blown away by this and don’t know what to think. Is Jesus telling me that all this extra stuff I hear about at church is not of him?This is a good point; the Church has contradicted itself by making so many additional man-made traditions requirements for salvation when these scriptures clearly suggest this should not be the case. It looks like the leaders are in a state of apostasy based on their own scriptures that they haven’t been paying enough attention to (Matt. 23:24-25). It is interesting to see that the BoM doesn’t really talk about some of the current focal points of LDS doctrine like temple marriage, priesthood, and the WoW when JS said it already contained the fullness of the gospel.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:It is interesting to see that the BoM doesn’t really talk about some of the current focal points of LDS doctrine like temple marriage, priesthood, and the WoW when JS said it already contained the fullness of the gospel.
“Fullness of the gospel” is one of those phrases that means pretty much whatever you want it to. According to the intro to the BoM, the Bible also contains “the fulless of the gospel”.
Quote:Jacob 2:26Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
One example of how the Book of Mormon contradicts mormonism, when mormonism instituted polygamy.
I think this is the problem one realizes when you accept the Book of Mormon, and other scripture, as a literal history, or that there is “one way” for the gospel to be lived and all people throughout history are expected to live by the exact same set of rules, with no exceptions, and your eternal existence depends on it.
Having said that…I WHOLE-HEARTILY, with no equivocations,
oppose the idea that the BoM is crap. It is sacred, holy scripture that can benefit a person’s life by applying the teachings to daily living, especially when accepting the symbolism and mythology found therein. The Church helps too, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I don’t think we get the option of having a perfect text, with a perfect church, and a perfect set of rules to live by. Instead, as my youngest son learned in sunbeams class years ago…
“we get what we get, and we don’t throw a fit.”The benefits come from finding meaning in what we have. If the BoM helps me feel more love for my fellow-beings, then it is good. If the Church has added a bunch of rules that help me live virtuous and kind to my family and others, it is good. If I find the church has added a bunch of things that distract me from my path to being a better person (like abstaining from coffee), then I ignore it and focus on the good things. If I don’t understand 3rd Nephi, then I read 2 Nephi again. Welcome to the buffet.
It just seems like at the core, the BoM has to be literally true or there is no point in the lds faith. what do we believe then? if it just self help book based on vague symbolism, well there’s a sectoin of those at the library. if it is not divine text then it might as well be from oprah. Brown wrote:It just seems like at the core, the BoM has to be literally true or there is no point in the lds faith. what do we believe then? if it just self help book based on vague symbolism, well there’s a sectoin of those at the library. if it is not divine text then it might as well be from oprah.
Divine text and literally true are not the same thing. My college math books may be literally true, with proofs that are unquestioned, and yet have a completely different purpose than holy writ.Brown wrote:It just seems like at the core, the BoM has to be literally true or there is no point in the lds faith. what do we believe then? if it just self help book based on vague symbolism, well there’s a sectoin of those at the library. if it is not divine text then it might as well be from oprah.
Slow down Brown. This stuff really sucks some times, but don’t panic. Remember, the middle way is exactly that — things are not all true or all false, all black or all white, all good or all bad. We see in many shades of gray and color – so is it possible that the BoM is not literally historic facts, yet still divinely inspired and chuck full of good spiritual messages that will help a struggling society find peace? Sure, why not.
Look – there are many people who when they realize that the BoM is not all that we have claimed it to be for 180 years, will become bitter and pack their bags and leave. And to be honest, I don’t blame them. Yes, we have been “misled” about many things in the church. But, as Richard Bushman likes to say — it doesn’t have to be “true” in order for it to be “good.”
You’re not going get ANYONE on this site that will argue about the issues of the BoM being literal and factual – and most folks here accept that it wasn’t even “translated” from gold plates. At best it was channeled via God to JS. At worst, JS made it all up in an attempt to fix many of the religious problems he was dealing with, and wanted a new system to share with his family and friends.
Here is how I feel about it today. I think JS was a spiritual guy, who, got a lot of “revelation” from “the gods” and he channeled that revelation into the BoM. I doubt that any of it is historic. It has a ton of mistakes, and most of it comes from JS perception of God and his own spiritual insight of the pathway that he choose to follow.
I think the BoM is good. I think the Bible is good. I think the Quotes of the Dalia Lama are good. I think the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is good. All of these source help me on my spiritual pathway. None of them, IMO, are factual historic documents – but they are far from being classified as “crap.”
I reject the notion that the church is TRUE. I also reject the notion that the church is FALSE. It’s not that simple anymore – its not an all or nothing deal – regardless of what you are told at church.
Brown wrote:It just seems like at the core, the BoM has to be literally true or there is no point in the lds faith.
what do we believe then?if it just self help book based on vague symbolism, well there’s a sectoin of those at the library. if it is not divine text then it might as well be from oprah. Well, the church believes it is the one true church on the face of the earth, and that all men must go through the priesthood channels to reach the CK/
I think THAT IS CRAP —- I think the church is a divinely inspired pathway, ONE OF MANY, that man can use to find peace in this life, and prepare for the spiritual journey that awaits in the next. It works for many many people. Not all – but many.
cwald wrote:I think the BoM is good. I think the Bible is good. I think the Quotes of the Dalia Lama are good. I think the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is good. All of these source help me on my spiritual pathway. None of them, IMO, are factual historic documents – but they are far from being classified as “crap.”
I reject the notion that the church is TRUE. I also reject the notion that the church is FALSE. It’s not that simple anymore – its not an all or nothing deal – regardless of what you are told at church.
Amen.
:clap: Nicely worded, cwald.Per Merriam-Webster
Quote:Paradox: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. how can their be gray area with this topic? either JS translated a holy book given to him by an angel or he didn’t and he is a liar and a fraud. i get the gray area on gc talks, but not this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.