- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t want this to be a long post so I’ll just get to the point. Is is right to call the Book of Mormon the keystone of our religion like so many do? Is it right to say that it is the most correct of all writings?
As a loyal Christian, I feel encouraged to question these statements.
As a loyal Christian, I believe that the literal description of the life of Jesus Christ, His ministry, and the atonement is the most important and sacred theological text.
I believe that the New Testament is just as sacred and important a text because it contains a full description of the life, teachings, ministry, and atonement of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Mormon contains many insightful references to Christ, and an inspiring account of His visit to the Americas, but not a detailed description of His ministry and atonement. Therefore, I consider it not to be more correct or of higher status than the New Testament.
Like always, just food for thought.
Welcome to the board Alaskaboy, and good luck on your journey. I will never forget when I was in high school a couple of my friends were talking and one of them said, “The BOM is the only book that really matters to read.” I stopped for a second and said, “There are a lot of things you can learn from reading the bible and it is important to be open to lots of different sources of information.” Needless to say I caused an argument with my statement. My friends were flabbergasted that I would say such a thing. I personally think the more sources of information you have the more likely you are to find the middle way which is where I believe truth resides. By only looking at the BOM we narrow our view to the point that we miss a wide spectrum of inspirational things. My mission president responded to that concern by saying that no one was ever converted to the church by reading the Bible. And I think he was absolutely right. IMO I think the extreme emphasis on the Book of Mormon is more for missionary purposes than anything else. The church uses it as a way to show that we are not “just another Christian church”. Unfortunately, I think that has resulted in members not even touching the Bible. Good question, Alaskaboy. I think leavingthecave25 got it right. It’s all about the conversion process which is ultimately a spiritual one. You don’t use reason and logic to convert people, you use emotion. (By the way, I think the same thing applies to any religion, product, or idea that you’re trying to disseminate.) Using the Bible to convert individuals to Mormonism makes no sense because EVERY Christian denomination uses the Bible. The LDS Church has something different. The Book of Mormon is fundamental to our religion because IF the Book of Mormon is true (as manifested by the Spirit) THEN Joseph Smith (who translated it) MUST be a prophet of God. And IF Joseph Smith is a prophet of God THEN the Church that he founded is true. Should sound familiar. If you look at some of the comments of those who are disaffected and disenchanted with the LDS Church on this and other boards, you often find some reference to issues with Joseph Smith. Once you start questioning his legitimacy as a prophet, the whole structure of belief starts to come apart. It comes apart because this is what we’re taught as children in Primary, adolescents in Priesthood or Young Women’s, missionaries in the mission field, and adults in Sunday School. It may seem a house of cards but this line of reasoning works as many former missionaries will attest! (Well, kinda. Depends on how you view success. Activity levels particularly among new converts vary widely from what I understand.) So, yes, I think it is the keystone of our religion.
Is it the most correct book? That’s a faith-based question. If you believe it comes from God and has not been subject to multiple translations, adjustments, and omissions (like the Bible) then I think you can say it is the most correct book. If it is just the product of Joseph Smith’s imagination, then probably not. The LDS Church doesn’t reject the Bible. There are several courses of study based around the Bible but naturally the Church is going to emphasize the Book of Mormon. However, I agree with red1988 that we should seek out truths in all sources of information. Even if you find the Book of Mormon compelling reading (I know some people don’t) I doubt you’d want it to be your only source of reading material.
alaskaboy19 wrote:Is is right to call the Book of Mormon the keystone of our religion like so many do? Is it right to say that it is the most correct of all writings?
I would say ‘yes’ and ‘it depends on you’.
As for preference of the BoM over the Bible, I agree that it’s over-the-top. On the other hand, it’s also cyclical. JS hardly ever referred to the BoM in his teachings, but referenced the bible constantly… But that wasn’t because he preferred one over the other, rather, he lived in a time when the church was trying to show legitimacy by connecting with the bible. Even though he spent more time in the bible, teaching from it, receiving revelations regarding meaning of it, translating it, and even trying to learn Hebrew to understand it better, it was JS who originated the statements you are asking about. There have been periods where one set of scriptures (including the D&C) was preferred over the other, or when none was specifically preferred. ETB elevated the BoM to its present status.
But it’s all a pretty broad brush. I find 2Nephi to be a much more interesting and meaningful work than Revelation, and I find Hebrews to be much more compelling than Ether. You might doubt that there ever was a man named Alma, but I can counter that with there was probably no man named Job either. An argument could be made that Moroni plagiarizes Paul, but it’s also the case that I & II Timothy weren’t written until probably 2-3 centuries after the death of Paul. The wars are boring and pretty pointless in the BoM, but no more so than Leviticus and Numbers. Did the Jaredites really cross the ocean in uncontrollable, semi-submersible barges? I don’t know, did Noah really collect two of every kind into a single boat? Including Rocky Mountain, Dahl, Stone and Desert Bighorn Sheep? How many different species of bears are there?
As we begin to question it, it becomes pretty apparent that the BoM does not reflect true “history”. There may be some elements of it that are historical, but it sure doesn’t seem like it. Regardless, if you treat it like a work of inspired writings that aren’t historical, or that are only loosely based on history, like Genesis, Exodus, Job, Jonah, Hosea, then you may find spiritual truth in it.
Like you, I love the NT, but I find much more spiritual truth in 1 Nephi 1, than I do in Matthew 1.
In other words, feel free to pick and choose the elements of christianity/mormonism that work for you… and allow that others can do that, too.
Yes, it’s the keystone of our religion. No doubt about it, imo. ***Personal soapbox alert***When it was used as such (“Here’s Moroni’s promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you’ve done that, we’ll start teaching doctrine.”), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using it as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experiences, missionary work flourished the least.
I know people who were converted to Mormonism through the Bible, and nearly every unique aspect of Mormon theology is grounded more in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon (which far too few members realize), but I know SO many people whose subsequent reading of the Bible was influenced by what they read in the Book of Mormon – who “gained a testimony” of the Book of Mormon then had totally new insights as they read the Bible. After all, the BofM says in at least two places that it’s primary intent is to convince people to believe the Bible – and, imo, that means believing what the Bible actually teaches, not what centuries of theologians and religionists have said it teaches.
In that way, I don’t mind the “most correct” language, either – since I don’t have to take it literally as meaning “mistake-free”. I believe it does what it was intended to do very well, when used as it says it should be used – not for every single person, since nothing works for everyone, but generally. I think we as a people might understand that better if we actually used it “correctly” as a “correcting tool” – again, not with regard to doctrine but rather with regard to “spiritual orientation” or the opening of “spiritual eyes” to possibilities that have been hidden by centuries of denial.
So, what I’m getting at is that BofM is the keystone of our religion, not because of what’s written in it, but because we’re the only ones who have it? As a Christian, I simply believe that the New Testament is most important, because it contains a full description of Christ’s ministry and atonement. Regardless of how many translations it has gone through.
Fwiw, that’s not what I said. I said that
the Book of Mormon itself says that the Bible is more important than the Book of Mormon.That message is loud and clear in the Book of Mormon – but it doesn’t contradict the idea that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. The Book of Mormon can be the keystone while allowing the Bible to be the most important theological treatise (the record “held up” by the Book of Mormon) – which is how I would classify the two if I was trying to be concise. Iow, the Book of Mormon says as much about the worth of the Bible as it does about the role of Joseph Smith – although it does address that role, obviously. The core intent of the Book of Mormon is to teach and testify of Jesus, the Christ. I don’t think there is any reasonable dispute about that. However, that is accomplished differently than too many members realize now, imo.
The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5) is laid out in such a way that people who read it will believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) – and that such a recognition will allow them then to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the “power of godliness” really entails). Iow, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with “new spiritual eyes” through which the “mists of darkness” caused by centuries of bad Christian apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.
To say it differently, much of the grand theology of the Bible has crashed and burned since the Bible was written and canonized (and even before then). The “keystone” allows that theology to be rebuilt firmly; it “holds it together” NOT because of the words themselves contained in it but because of the process generated by the concept it teaches of a Father God who actually will communicate with his children and, subsequently, when re-reading the Bible, teach them of their “divine worth”.
A core failure of our current situation, imo, is BOTH a lack of understanding of the Book of Mormon’s role in that process (and what the Book of Mormon actually says) AND a lack of understanding of the Bible and what it actually teaches. When we short-circuited and altered how we study, view and use the Book of Mormon, I believe we started losing the former respect for and understanding of the Bible that LDS members used to have.
Old-Timer wrote:The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5) is laid out in such a way that people who read it will believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) – and that such a recognition will allow them then to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the “power of godliness” really entails). Iow, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with “new spiritual eyes” through which the “mists of darkness” caused by centuries of bad Christian apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.
To say it differently, much of the grand theology of the Bible has crashed and burned since the Bible was written and canonized (and even before then). The “keystone” allows that theology to be rebuilt firmly; it “holds it together” NOT because of the words themselves contained in it but because of the process generated by the concept it teaches of a Father God who actually will communicate with his children and, subsequently, when re-reading the Bible, teach them of their “divine worth”.
I read from Ray’s words that the Bible is confusing. Yes, the story of Jesus’ ministry is there but what it all means for someone looking for a blueprinted structure and a “how to” map of salvation is difficult (Do you just believe? do you need baptism? what form of baptism? Is authority important? How should one live after the conversion event? etc.) The BOM and other LDS doctrines provide a lens through witch to read the Bible and get the blueprint more or less. Part of this comes from emphasizing bible scriptures that support Mormon doctrine and downplaying, dismissing, or interpreting away scriptures that disagree – but that is just human nature playing out on an organizational scale.
I believe that Mormon Doctrine (some of which is contained in the BOM) is our “key” to interpreting the bible. I also agree that the BOM provides something tangible to pray over. What does it mean for a church to be “true” or a man (JS) that died over 100 years ago to have been a “true” prophet? These are more abstract concepts. But a book, that I can hold in my hands and feel that it is of God – there is power in that.
“Keystone” does not necessarily mean the most sacred or important. It was just an imperfect metaphor.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.