- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If this has already been discussed, please help me find the postings… But…
I understand that early church missionaries carried BOMs to tell people about.
Did they preach from it?
WHAT did they preach?
It wasn’t about eternal families…that didn’t come about until after JS’s death (right?).
What drew people to THIS religion above the others of the day?
I mean, we/I tend to think our best message is that families can be together forever…but if that wasn’t a main theme in the early church days, then what was?
Funnily enough, at the time, the question of where the Indians came from was a big one, and few thought they came from Asia! It was also a specifically American message as well, as opposed to an Old World one.
SamBee wrote:It was also a specifically American message as well, as opposed to an Old World one.
Meaning that when missionaries would go to foreign countries, they would also teach about the wonders of America?
I’m thinking more of the USA, but yes, when they went to Europe, they did preach about wide open spaces. You have to remember that many of the people they recruited in Europe were living in horrible, squalid, industrial slums, and the prospect of even an acre and a mule was attractive. They used the Book of Mormon as a conduit for the spirit and as a witness of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. They preached from the Bible. Similar to what Ray said the BoM was a sign that the heavens were open and gifts of the spirit were really happening. Missionaries spoke very little of Joseph Smith by name, but the message was God was offering new revelations and the organization was getting back to the same as what Jesus taught. Yes, what Ray and Orson said. Also, it was during a time of many restorationist movements. People knew key teachings were lost and confusing…many were looking for additional light and knowledge from God…they’d heard all the arguments from pastors already…they wanted something new. They were in a new world wanting a new paradigm apart from the old world and what many viewed as corrupted religions through governments.
The Book of Mormon was a way to say there was something new, not just another interpretation of the old they’ve heard all the time.
It was very much used as a testament of the prophetic call of Joseph. The heavens were opened, and things were being restored from God. That generated a lot of excitement.
I think the BoM was quoted and taught a lot by early missionaries, but they didn’t have our current system of chapters, verses, cross reference guides…so it was not as easy to teach from as it is today.
Quote:I mean, we/I tend to think our best message is that families can be together forever…but if that wasn’t a main theme in the early church days, then what was?
I believe Zion was a great theme then…gathering to await the 2nd coming, and the Book of Mormon was used to teach Christ came to the Americas and he would come again, the literal gathering of the people.
Many things came out of that…and eternal families was a big teaching, but in a different way. Eternal families in a hierarchical way to build kingdoms and become gods, therefore things like polygamy were ways to seal on earth these eternally linked family connections. It is why I believe polygamy was less about sex with multiple partners as it was about godhood and linking us all in a family positioned for eternal blessings.
But again…those were not coming from the Book of Mormon, but from modern revelations. The Book of Mormon was a talisman to show that God intervenes and modern revelations were happening, not the answer book on what the doctrines were or what the saints should do or teach. This is clearly seen when the teachings in the book of mormon seems to go directly against the modern revelations…such as polygamy or priesthood.
Great question, QuestionsAbound. (that was hard to type) I agree with what has been said so far. I think the BofM was appealing on its own for its millennial message. In the BofM, unlike the Bible, it appears that God has a grand plan that has been in motion for thousands of years and is coming together in “our time” and that we are a part of it. The Bible struggles with clarity about our times and our place in God’s plan, but the BofM is very reassuring to Latter-day people that God has not only not forgotten about us, but has planned for culmination of it all during our time. The coming forth of the BofM indicated an acceleration toward the Millennium. The BofM itself said its purpose was “to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”
So, imagine that you were sitting in your living room and a knock came at the door and there was a missionary there. She tells you, “There has been a glorious rebirth of God’s involvement in our world that has seemed adrift for a very long time. God’s presence has come back to the earth to prepare for the imminent Second Coming, and he is again speaking with prophets. In fact, here is a revelation that he’s given to a prophet. We call it the Book of Hamshackle, and it tells of marvelous things previously unknown.” Now, most people would make an excuse that their psychopath brother-in-law, who is on the run from authorities, is coming by any minute, so they have to go. But some, including me, would want to hear more. And as has been said, the modern revelation is the key component, not the BofH, per se, but it’s place in the larger picture.
Eternal marriage, which I agree is the #1 LDS doctrine, didn’t develop until later. But there was plenty of appeal about the early message. I can attest to that having been a missionary. It is still a very powerful message.
Book of Hamshackle….with a catchy name like that…who would not want to read it??? 
Yeah, can I get a copy. There is the Book of Jeraneck though…
The early missionary message IMHO was, pound for pound, more successful than our current system. It was more personalized to each investigator, did not use visual aids much, did not go on for a set time, had experienced, not greenhorn, preachers and did not wear an obvious uniform. It was able to get people to go to America, whereas we have trouble getting people to go along for six months!
In England the BoM wasn’t even available until the second group of missionaries arrived and BY arranged for it to be published. Conversion was by preaching the restoration with large numbers of converts by the first group including, I think, Wilford Woodruf. I remember teaching about it in Primary and being amazed about how much success they had. It was a time when that message really resonated culturally in America and Europe. Now it doesn’t resonate culturally as much on a widespread basis in those areas but does in others. History is fascinating.
There’s some other stuff about the foreign missions – * Lessons were tailored to the individuals, not done to a set plan or time.
* Members did not have to sit through days of televized general conference, but heard live speeches from preachers in the same room as them.
* Missionaries were mature men, often with families, not youngsters who’ve been through a training center.
* Opposition was widespread, but disorganized and ill-informed.
* Foreign missions produced their own translations, magazines etc with minimal interference from HQ.
* Missionaries did not wear obvious uniforms, or follow the exact same routine.
* Missionary attire did not stick out at the time, nor did they have the same badges.
* Missionaries were able to convert dozens of people – at least one whole denomination, several congregations, and substantial communities.
* Missionaries mainly came from working class backgrounds, had worked with their hands a lot and were not sheltered.
* Correlation was at a minimum.
SamBee wrote:* Opposition was widespread, but disorganized and ill-informed.
In the 1850’s when missionaries arrived in South Africa, a local paper warned that if people invited them in, they should mind their silverware and valuables.SamBee wrote:There’s some other stuff about the foreign missions –
* Lessons were tailored to the individuals, not done to a set plan or time.
* Members did not have to sit through days of televized general conference, but heard live speeches from preachers in the same room as them.
* Missionaries were mature men, often with families, not youngsters who’ve been through a training center.
* Opposition was widespread, but disorganized and ill-informed.
* Foreign missions produced their own translations, magazines etc with minimal interference from HQ.
* Missionaries did not wear obvious uniforms, or follow the exact same routine.
* Missionary attire did not stick out at the time, nor did they have the same badges.
* Missionaries were able to convert dozens of people – at least one whole denomination, several congregations, and substantial communities.
* Missionaries mainly came from working class backgrounds, had worked with their hands a lot and were not sheltered.
* Correlation was at a minimum.
But were they allowed to wear backpacks?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.