- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay, here’s something. The Book of Mormon. There is so much emphasis in the gospel on the Book of Mormon as kind of the centerpiece of our religion. But my experience with it has been rather, shall we say, anti-climactic compared to other members of the church. First of all, when I was a teenager (I don’t remember how old, exactly) my bishop asked me if I knew the Book of Mormon was true, and I said yes. He asked me if I had prayed about it, to which my response was, “Well, no, but I just told you I knew it was true.” He advised me to pray about it anyway, which I did. And finally, one night, after one of my personal prayers, I thought to myself, “I know the Book of Mormon is true, and I’m not going to get any more answer than what I’ve already got,” which my bishop accepted – I prayed about it like he asked, and that was it.
I went on my mission to Brazil, which, for any of you who also served in Brazil, you know what the religious environment is like there – hyper-Christian, Jesus’ picture is already in every home, his name is sometimes on the door of the house, and of course, everyone’s got a Bible. So when people read the Book of Mormon for the first time (those that didn’t reject it outright because it was outside of the Bible), it did kind of open the door to additional scripture, personal revelation, and the rest of the gospel. So I can see how it had an impact – on other people.
The thing is, all the things that the Book of Mormon is supposed to accomplish, I pretty much got from other pieces of the gospel. Testify of Christ? Yeah, I’ve got a testimony of Christ. Continuing revelation? Yeah, I’ve listened to the prophets and apostles in General Conference. Priesthood authority? I’ve gotten priesthood blessings. I even got to be sealed to my parents in the temple before I was baptized, so I’ve lived my whole life with a testimony of the temple. I can see the place of the Book of Mormon in the greater plan of salvation, but I don’t see it doing anything for me personally, except for when I was 3 and my mom caught me reading it out loud (the actual book, not the kids’ stories version) in the living room. And with all the times I read it, starting at the age of 3, growing up, being forced to read it in seminary, reading it on my mission, and afterwards, I kind of feel like if the Book of Mormon were to have some real profound impact on my life, it would have happened by now.
And yet, I keep hearing these promises that the Book of Mormon is going to transform my life somehow, and I’m having a hard time believing it, not because I think the person’s lying, but just because I wonder if there’s only so much the Book of Mormon can do (for all that it is, it’s still, after all, a
book, meaning it has a beginning, middle, and end, and only so much that can be contained in between), and since I’ve had all those bases covered, then the Book of Mormon really has nothing more to offer me. Or that I’ve got some problems that are bothering me so much, and since I’ve read the book cover to cover so many times, I feel like the Book of Mormon isn’t relevant to those particular problems, and therefore I really have no motivation to read it over some other book that may even be 100% secular for all I care. I guess my first question is – am I the only one who feels this way? Am I the only temple worthy member of the church who feels like the Book of Mormon has nothing to offer me individually, particularly to the specific problems I’m dealing with right now, in September 2013? But even if that hasn’t been your experience, what do you suggest I do about it?
Thanks for posting this…I think it is a great open and honest post. I found it interesting in reading church history how little the Book of Mormon was used in the early church. Mostly for children and stories to build faith for children, but there were a lot of followers for the restorationist movement that knew little of the book of mormon itself when being converted or committing to the church and moving to Zion. I also don’t actually find too many sermons Joseph Smith gave that included doctrine from the Book of Mormon, which is interesting.
I think there was a greater push much much later to elevate the book as an important keystone to our religion for the saints, even to the point Ezra Taft Benson needed to call the saints to repentance for not reading it enough and not passing it out to friends (which also helped the church distribution since they had an excess of inventory they needed to move).
I think the Book of Mormon can be a huge testimony builder for many people, but not all. I think you can have a strong testimony of the gospel, even if the book just makes your feel….”meh”.
Perhaps it is like the different gifts of the spirit…to some it is given one thing, to another something different. Perhaps the book doesn’t speak to you spiritually like it does to others. The promises you’ll hear at church and in testimonies from others is about them and their feelings. That is the beauty of personal revelation…it is personal, not a canned guaranteed experience for all to experience the same way. You experience spirituality your own way. I think you can accept that the book just doesn’t do it for you, and be OK with that.
That’s interesting that you say Joseph Smith didn’t use it that much, particularly given his quote that “…the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, and a man will get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.” And didnt ETB even use a D&C quote about the early saints neglecting the BoM as well when he made that proclamation? If what you’re saying is true, I wonder why it took over 150 years for the Book of Mormon to become so publicly prominent as it is in the church today.
And thank you for bringing up personal revelation, since I feel like I want more personal revelation, and yet I keep hearing about the Book of Mormon, but I still have this feeling like, “No, I’ve tried that. It works for everyone else, but not for me. I need something else.” And yet, I’m still having a hard time finding what that something else is.
Like Heber said, I find it fascinating to see how the Book of Mormon was used in the early days of the Church – and it is interesting that it was used exactly like you say you saw it “work” on your mission. (“So when people read the Book of Mormon for the first time (those that didn’t reject it outright because it was outside of the Bible), it did kind of open the door to additional scripture, personal revelation, and the rest of the gospel.”) I love the Book of Mormon for a number of reasons, but I’ve never had a burning in the bosom feeling about it. I just love what it teaches. I also am intrigued by what some key passages say about its purpose – and those passages don’t say what we emphasize so much right now in the Church.
1)
It was written to help people believe the Bible.That is stated directly as the primary purpose in Mormon 7 – especially verses 8-9. In other words, it is a secondwitness – not a first witness– and it was used in the early church to help them understand and believe the Bible better and more fully, not as the primary witness of Jesus or the central scriptural canon of our theology that tends to be our focus now. (It’s interesting to note that nearly all of our truly unique doctrines are from the Bible, not the Book of Mormon.) 2)
It was written to help people accept that God will be merciful to them personally – by remembering His mercy throughout history to others.This is the central message of Moroni 10:3-5 – and we tend to cut the heart out of that passage when we breeze past verse 3 in order to get to verses 4-5. We literally change Moroni’s admonition when we make it nothing more than, “ Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask if it is true.” That’s not what the passage actually asks people to do – at least, not everything it asks them to do. That’s how I see the Book of Mormon, and it works for me – even though, again, I’ve never had a distinctly powerful manifestation of it being a factual historical record. My connection is intellectual (really studying slowly and carefully what is written in it), emotional (I really like many of the stories.), observational (seeing the effect it has had on others), spiritual (the insights and theological framework it has given me), etc.
TragedianActor wrote:If what you’re saying is true, I wonder why it took over 150 years for the Book of Mormon to become so publicly prominent as it is in the church today.
Think about this…
What are the things that Mormons are so known for?
– Families
– Temples
– Word of Wisdom
– Polygamy
– Prophets
What are some of the core teachings?
– Jesus Christ and God the Father are 2 separate resurrected beings
– Christ’s Church and the offices and administration of such
– Prophets and authority
– Priesthood Organization (Aaronic, Melchezidek)
– Ordinances and covenants
– Plan of Salvation including Pre-existence and 3 degrees of glory in the afterlife
– Articles of Faith
When you look at these things…how many of these really came from the Book of Mormon? Look at the core things in the church and what is most important…and realize the Book of Mormon is used to teach a lot about Christ and God’s dealings with people…but not a whole lot on specific doctrines and specific Mormonisms.
I feel the book is special. But I can separate it out from the current organization of the church in so many ways.
So why did the church make a big push in the 1950s through 1990s on it? Probably several reasons, but one idea could be argued that as we had distanced ourselves from things like polygamy, and became more mainstream christian, we needed something for missionaries to show we are different. The book does do that. But once a person reads the book and if they get inspired by it…they have to learn a whole lot of what Mormonism is about that a person will never find in the Book itself. Thus, you can be inspired by the Book, and not like the church the way it is currently. Therefore, it seems logical to me it can go the other way around and like many things about church and the doctrines we believe in, without really feeling very inspired by the book itself. Despite the great claims others will tout on Sunday.
Heber13 wrote:So why did the church make a big push in the 1950s through 1990s on it? Probably several reasons, but one idea could be argued that as we had distanced ourselves from things like polygamy, and became more mainstream christian, we needed something for missionaries to show we are different. The book does do that. But once a person reads the book and if they get inspired by it…they have to learn a whole lot of what Mormonism is about that a person will never find in the Book itself. Thus, you can be inspired by the Book, and not like the church the way it is currently. Therefore, it seems logical to me it can go the other way around and like many things about church and the doctrines we believe in, without really feeling very inspired by the book itself. Despite the great claims others will tout on Sunday.
Interesting that you mention the book as a means of making us stand out or look unique. Reminds me of this time in the MTC when my very Peter Priesthood-y companion bought a picture of Christ from the bookstore and then announced to all of us in the room that, “This is what it’s all about, Elders!” And I remember thinking that there were so many things that separated us out from other Christian churches above and beyond just Christ and the atonement that I decided to be rebellious and get a picture of Joseph Smith instead.
TragedianActor wrote:I decided to be rebellious and get a picture of Joseph Smith instead.
Hahaha. You’re such a rebel!
:thumbup: You truly are a Tragedian Actor.
:wave: You might find the following posts from my personal blog interesting: “
The Primary Purpose of the Book of Mormon Is NOT to Be Used as a Doctrinal Proof Text” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2012/01/primary-purpose-of-book-of-mormon-is.html “
How Did Joseph View the Book of Mormon?” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-did-joesph-view-book-of-mormon.html “
Rethinking our Assumptions of the Book of Mormon” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/11/rethinking-our-assumptions-of-book-of.html Thanks for those links, Ray! I do have a question about one specific line one one of your posts: “It also opens a conduit to seek personal revelation in personal areas.” How have you found that works, exactly? Again, I would assume that revelation would not come directly from the words of the book itself, since oftentimes we’re seeking personal revelation about topics that the Book of Mormon simply doesn’t address. So what’s the connection between the Book of Mormon and that conduit of personal revelation?
Heber13 wrote:TragedianActor wrote:I decided to be rebellious and get a picture of Joseph Smith instead.
Hahaha. You’re such a rebel!
:thumbup: You truly are a Tragedian Actor.
:wave: Yeah, I know.
But even then, for me, Joseph Smith is so much bigger than just the Book of Mormon. He restored the priesthood, he restored the church, he restored the temple ordinances, he implemented work for the dead (which, to my knowledge, didn’t exist before this dispensation – can anyone verify this?). Again, many people say that a testimony of the Book of Mormon leads to a testimony of Joseph Smith, but again, I managed to get a testimony of Joseph Smith independent of the Book of Mormon.
TragedianActor wrote:he implemented work for the dead (which, to my knowledge, didn’t exist before this dispensation – can anyone verify this?).
There are few references to baptism for the dead in early christian writings. The one from the bible seems to indicate that there was a sect of christianity that practiced it but didn’t believe in the resurection. The other reference of which I am aware is from around 300AD and it is a proclamation banning the practice.
Roy, fwiw, when I read 1 Corinthians 15:1-29, I see verse 29 as the capstone, closing argument Paul uses for the validity of the resurrection of ALL mankind. I’ve read the argument that verse 29 refers to a breakaway sect that didn’t believe in the resurrection, but Paul couches that chapter in the framework of a legal argument, and he ends that section with the question, rephrased for clarity: Quote:If ALL, including the dead, are not resurrected, why are people baptized for the dead? Baptisms for the dead occur because all will be made alive in Christ [verse 22], and all need baptism.
That is the only reading that makes sense to me, when the entire chapter up to that point is read as one argument for the idea that resurrection is real and all are resurrected.
Quote:I do have a question about one specific line one one of your posts: “It also opens a conduit to seek personal revelation in personal areas.” How have you found that works, exactly? Again, I would assume that revelation would not come directly from the words of the book itself, since oftentimes we’re seeking personal revelation about topics that the Book of Mormon simply doesn’t address. So what’s the connection between the Book of Mormon and that conduit of personal revelation?
Most people are not taught to ask God for specific answers to specific questions, so teaching people to ponder God’s mercy throughout history and then to pray for a specific answer to a specific question (“Are these things true?”) opens the door for them to continue to ask God for answers to questions once they feel He has answered them the first time. It’s not just a one-time thing. In our theology, it leads to the concept of on-going and personal revelation – and praying about the Book of Mormon often is the first step in that process for many people.
It’s not exactly how it worked for me, since I grew up with an acceptance of the principles of on-going and personal revelation and didn’t need that catalyst personally, but I have seen it work that way for lots of other people.
You might want to consider that aspect – that,
if someone grows up with an acceptance of something, “gaining a witness of it” can be very different than having an extraordinary experience that teaches it for the first time. I think we teach many things as happening for everyone in the exact same way, and, in doing so, miss the complexity of humanity and the idea that God speaks to us in our own language, according to our own understanding. I’d rather teach a principle and let people experience things themselves. Heber13 wrote:I found it interesting in reading church history how little the Book of Mormon was used in the early church. Mostly for children and stories to build faith for children, but there were a lot of followers for the restorationist movement that knew little of the book of mormon itself when being converted or committing to the church and moving to Zion. I also don’t actually find too many sermons Joseph Smith gave that included doctrine from the Book of Mormon, which is interesting.
I find that quite interesting as well. However, I think I’ve drawn a slightly different conclusion; not that it wasn’t used, but simply that it wasn’t the subject of sermons. JS did often use the Bible as a basis for sermons, but this was usually in an attempt to show how his contemporary religious thinkers fell short of understanding it. In other words, he used the bible to point out that the LDS Church as he taught it had a better understanding of their one common source document. That doesn’t mean that the BofM wasn’t prominent. JS also didn’t quote much from the D&C. I believe he took those unique-to-mormonism works as a baseline, and then went on to expound on new things, constanty pushing the envelope.We know that the teachings of the BofM were important. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery, Parley Pratt, Peter Whitmer, Jr, and Ziba Peterson were sent on a mission to the “Lamanites”, fullfilling the BofM promises. Same was true for Parley Pratt in the 1850s when we was called to South America and viewed it as part of God’s plan presented in the BofM. Many, including the aforementioned Pratt, the Youngs, and the Partridges were converted directly because of the BofM.
During JS’s life, there were four printings of the BofM (1830, 1837, 1840, and 1841, the latter in England). We know that the concepts in the BofM continued to be prevalent, because of the story of Zelph and the Kinderhook plates. Also, David Whitmer milked his association with the BofM for the rest of his life.
I think the way I’d put it is that to members of the Church in those days, the fact of the BofM was as important as its content. I agree that today, we use it to excess. I do think our use of the various scriptures is cyclical.
At age 14 I converted to the church and had a very powerful feeling telling me the book was true. I came from a family that used a lot of alcohol and drugs so it was a great blessing for me and what I needed at that time. I was also excited that there was a prophet to tell us what God wanted his people to know in the latter days but as the years have passed and my experiences have shaped me, I find that the BoM has little sway with me and that the modern prophets haven’t given me much to go on other than mostly some good fatherly advice. I miss the days when I thought that there were better answers to life’s difficult questions contained in the scriptures and words of the prophets. Truthfully I find better answers on sites like this then I do from other church sources, at least answers that feel better to my spirit now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.