What does the Book of Mormon actually teach?

dande,

It’s certainly a fair question. In defense of the BofM, though, I’ll ask the question another way. What doctrines are in the Bible that are not found in the other books of LDS scripture? Why do we need the Bible? I don’t mean this to pit one against the other, but rather to say that the LDS view is that all these works combine into one set “stick of Judah, stick of Joseph”. I haven’t heard the term for a few years, but when I was young, we even used the slang term “sticks” for the complete set of scriptures (Bible and Triple . For example, “Hey, have you seen my sticks? I left them under the Sacrament Table after blessing the Sacrament in Junior Sunday School this morning.”

Also, I think it depends on how any one individual views the scriptures as a whole. For me, I don’t look for them to enumerate specific points of doctrine. I mean, they’d be a really inefficient way to do that. If that was their purpose, we’d start with the AofF, add about 50 more, and done. Prophet tells you to read the whole Book of Doctrine this year? Great, do it in one sitting – maybe during commercial breaks of football games. Rather, I look at the scriptures as the Gospel in abstract. Snippets, concepts, allegories, metaphors, similes. In them, I find my own truths. Because it’s somewhat abstract, each person can hear in them what they need or want to hear… people can find what resonates with them. It’s pretty frequent on this site alone, that I hear someone else’s explanation of how they view the meaning of something in the Gospel, and I realize that people get different messages from the same source material. Not wrong or right, just viewed through a different lens. That’s something I love about the scriptures: they adapt to the personal view of the reader.

For me, I like the NT and get the most from it. After that, sure, there’s some good stuff in the OT, but that work is mostly a desert, with an occasional oasis. The D&C, the BofM, the PofGP… for me, they don’t really do anything, but I also can find inspirational texts there if I try. But for others, it can be the opposite. A recent conversation at Church revealed that some people prefer the BofM and would rather ONLY read that and not have to study the NT as well. That boggles my mind, but my love of the NT over the BofM would seem just as weird to them.

From a historical viewpoint, I believe the BofM’s key role in the foundation of the Church was to demonstrate that God is alive, that he’s active, that he has a work in the latter days, that he is the God of the whole earth, that Israel is still the chosen people, but that those of that house are sprinkled all over the earth, that there is much that God has revealed before, that he is at it again, and that it will continue… that knowledge of God is at your fingertips and will continue to unfold if you seek it.

I think the primary teaching is that the Bible is not the only, perfect word of God – that it isn’t sola scripture and all the word of God we need. That alone is a major teaching.

Also, at two points in the BofM it says one of the core purposes of the BofM is to convince people of the importance of the Bible – what it actually says, not the claims and interpretations that had developed over centuries. In other words, the idea is that people who read the BofM and accept it can read the Bible differently and more accurately. There is a lot of power in that, and I personally believe it can be true. Many Mormons still misinterpret the Bible, but it still is a powerful concept

To me, it’s like scripture in general. AT the risk of being irreverent, to me, scriptures have a lot in common with Monty Python’s John Cleese’s statement that he would “fart in your general direction”.

The scriptures, in my view, point you in a general direction — be kind, charitable, serve others, seek inspiration, be obedient, persist in trials, expect miracles etcetera. But they don’t tell you how to solve specific problems. For those things you need professional self-help books, training courses, and up to date knowledge in many cases. And the irony of all that is that we often shun “the philosophies of men” or ‘the knowledge of man”. I think there was a kind of angst toward the educated person back in the time of JS’s day — few had the luxury of going to school, and those that did were likely somewhat arrogant about it. JS certainly didn’t have much good to say about learned men.

The Book of Mormon provides some unique doctrines not found in the Bible. I think Dande mentioned most of them — but for me, it’s real value is in presenting an additional book of scripture supposedly revealed by divinity. This is the foundation of most new religions that are work on a different paradigm. Islam, Christianity, and now, Mormonism. For any ground-breaking religions, there is normally someone who claims divine access and who also produces or spawns a book of scripture. That is what the Book of Mormon did for Mormonism and represents its major contribution.

Yes, there are a few doctrinal clarifications, but most consider the BoM a synthesis of 19th centrual biblical debate and thought. I now believe the book is a product of the 19th century . I don’t believe its necessarily a record of the ancients who supposedly wrote it. But I also have great faith in my own ignorance and am happy to be proven wrong.

But I still consider it as credible as the bible in terms of content.

[*]Christ as a universal God and Savior. But all of Christendom believes this.

You’d be surprised. There are some churches which are implicitly racist and don’t take that line (and when I say racist, I mean deeper than our priesthood ban).

You’d be surprised. There are some churches which are implicitly racist and don’t take that line (and when I say racist, I mean deeper than our priesthood ban).

FWIW, you can still be racist, while believing Jesus is still God over the “inferior races”.

Not even that. Some of these groups believe they are incapable of salvation at all.

Not even that. Some of these groups believe they are incapable of salvation at all.

Any examples?

Certain extreme Afrikaaners who believe black Africans are the “beasts of the field” mentioned in the Bible and not really human.

The best explanation I’ve heard is that the BoM is about salvation, and the later LDS scriptures deal more with exaltation.