- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In his weekly email my missionary son said he had spent a great deal of time this past week reading the New Testament because his companion was injured and can’t walk very well. He has a new found love for the Bible and plans to begin reading the Old Testament now. He bore a testimony about the New testament and its emphasis on Christ and how he didn’t believe anyone could actually be Christian without having read it.He said their mission president had encouraged them to read the Bible and teach from it as people in their area are mostly Catholic and can relate. My son then said he couldn’t say the Book of Mormon is overemphasized but he does believe the Bible, and particularly the New testament, is underemphasized. I agree with that assessment. I had replied to him that in my understanding of church history this wasn’t always the case. My understanding of this part of church history is not very deep, however. So, when did this emphasis on the Book of Mormon over the Bible begin and why? Not long after I was baptized I remember President Benson emphasizing the Book of Mormon over the Bible. He said the Book of Mormon was not being studied as it should be. I don’t know if this is when the emphasis really began or not as I was new in the church at the time. Much later I remember President Hinkley re-emphasizing its importance and challenging members to read the BOM daily. In my stake it seems the Bible is hardly referred to at all. The youth read and study from the BOM. At least this is what it was like up until a year ago when I stopped attending church. Don’t know if it’s changed since then. Happy New Year’s Eve!
I think Benson’s angle was that the members treated the BoM too lightly and that the church would be under condemnation until the church started to place more emphasis on the BoM. http://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/11/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/11/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Benson mentions and strengthens the language already found in AoF 8 and the BoM Introduction. You might fact check, but I think the BoM Introduction was added by Bruce R. McConkie in 1981… so 5 years before Benson’s talk on the BoM.
I’ve always heard and understood that the books are supposed to be complementary of one another, but there is an undercurrent of the most correct book and written specifically for our day that would elevate it over the other standard works.
We have a rotating schedule in SS to study one standard work per year, it’s not like they are trying to suppress the Bible. The NT contains the mortal ministry of the savior, I don’t see how we’d get very far without reading those experiences from time to time. People readily refer to Bible scriptures all the time in this area, perhaps this is more regional?
DarkJedi, Personally, I much prefer the NT, and I completely agree with what your son had to say about it. However, in the Church, the BofM tends to have preeminence. It’s not surprising that it would be so, because the BofM is (for all practical purposes) unique to our Church, while the NT is the domain of all christian sects. As my own missionary son said once, they primarily teach out of the BofM, because otherwise they aren’t offering anything new to the investigators. It’s the novelty of the BofM that makes it so valuable as a Mormon artifact.
FYI, there was a thread that covered some of what you are asking about here:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4642 At first, the Book of Mormon was the primary missionary source for the obtaining of an initial spiritual witness. Missionaries would give someone a copy, tell them it was translated by a modern prophet and ask the person to talk with them once they had read the book. They preached out of the Bible but used the Book of Mormon as the primary evidence of the Restoration. That held for a long time, until Pres. Benson started emphasizing the Book of Mormon. Seminary and Institute students still study the Bible for two years and the Book of Mormon for only one, but, yes, the practical emphasis in personal study has shifted to the Book of Mormon – too far, in my opinion. I love the Book of Mormon, but its own stated purpose (in two separate places) is to convince people to believe the Bible – so, even though I understand seeing a uniquely Mormon scripture as primary, I don’t believe it is or should be. I believe the Bible still is our primary religious text.
I do recall Pres. Benson’s talk about the BoM, one of the highlights of his tenure. I agreed with it at the time as I was more orthodox, even though I wasn’t especially a fan of ETB. As a new convert in 1981, I liked the BoM, partly because it was unique to the church, but also I found it easier to read than the Bible. I get that part. I seem to recall hearing a lot more of the BoM in church before ETB, though. I do agree many members took his words to heart, but I’m thinking less emphasis in teaching from the Bible predates that. Thoughts on where to look (research) to find this info?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.