What more can He say?

[Anonymous]

We sang “How Firm a Foundation” yesterday at church and since music has a unique way to spark thoughts in *my* mind, this line stood out to me:

“What more can he say than to you he hath said”

I often find that some hymns are “right on the gospel money” and I wonder…how did “we” get so far off the mark?

This hymn was written around 1787, well before the BOM was introduced.

So, it got me thinking…What more CAN He say?

What does the BOM teach that the Bible doesn’t? After all, the BOM is the keystone to our religion, we should probably know what is in it that is missing from the Bible, right?

Obviously this is a lesson that I missed in my primary days (oh, wait…this isn’t something we teach in our church).

I googled and found an answer here:

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/4-comparison-book-mormon-bible-and-traditional-teachings

For those who have already had my question and answered it, what can you add?

As a side note, we had a Bible story told across the pulpit! I was thrilled. We need more of those stories in SM!

[Anonymous]

The first item in the article you referenced lists “Jesus as the Son of God”. I would have to say that’s a stretch since the most doctrinally significant changes to the BOM were the addition of “the Son of” in some verses where the relationship of Jesus to God was unclear. Some even argue that the additional words actually changed the meaning rather than adding clarification. I don’t have any issues with the church adding those words, as it seems that is the job of modern revelation – to clear up misunderstandings. But to say that the BOM itself cleared up that issue is a stretch IMO.

Things the BOM does shed light on:

1 – Baptism of infants

2 – Condemnation of polygamy (OK – with the exception of when it’s commanded)

This hymn is one that I’ve heard used by anti-Mormons (As I write that term, I have to laugh a bit because it doesn’t mean what it used to. Is there a better term?) against the church. They said, “why would a church that believes in continuing revelation sing a hymn that says there’s nothing more He can say”. I myself don’t see anything wrong with singing hymns that are not 100% doctrine. There are many more serious issues out there.

[Anonymous]

Me to my wife: “What more can I say than I love you?”

A boss to an employee: “What more can I say than you need to show up on time and work hard?”

The “prophets / record keepers” in Omni: “What more can I say than what already has been said?”

I see it as a rhetorical question, and I’m not concerned that the Book of Mormon doesn’t add lots and lots of new doctrine to what we have in the Bible. I don’t see that as one of its purposes. In fact, one of the stated purposes is to encourage people to believe the Bible. Most people forget that.

[Anonymous]

If anything the BoM’s message to the world is that god still speaks to man… which is a tad ironic given the juxtaposition with the hymn. I guess the message is not adding to but rather stating the same message again in a new dispensation.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I see it as a rhetorical question, and I’m not concerned that the Book of Mormon doesn’t add lots and lots of new doctrine to what we have in the Bible. I don’t see that as one of its purposes. In fact, one of the stated purposes is to encourage people to believe the Bible. Most people forget that.

I thought about it as acting as a “Second Witness”

If that’s the whole purpose of the BOM, then I’m cool with that…but let’s focus more on witnessing for Christ instead of herding people into our buildings.

But my mind keeps going back to the whole, “We NEED the BOM to fill in the gaps that the Bible left us when it was translated and complied and mucked up.”

And if that’s the case, then I am looking for a list of “answers”.

Some have been mentioned here on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But my mind keeps going back to the whole, “We NEED the BOM to fill in the gaps that the Bible left us when it was translated and complied and mucked up.”

I understand, but I just don’t see the Book of Mormon that way – especially since there is SO much more unique Mormon doctrine in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon. Really, it’s not close.

[Anonymous]

I’m in the camp of the BoM supporting the Bible (“Another Testament”) and really don’t see its purpose as adding much. I agree that more unique Mormon doctrine can be found in the Bible. I am a Christian without the BoM, and I don’t think the BoM changes my Christianity in any way. For me, if I’m looking for Christ’s words I first look in the gospels, not 3 Nephi.

[Anonymous]

I think the Book of Mormon’s role of supporting the bible may become more important. More and more doubt is being heaped on the bible as time passes. There are four testimonies of Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – but a favored hypothesis among biblical scholars is that Matthew and Luke’s testimonies are merely writings based on the “Q” and Mark’s testimony. Also, the authorship of John is questioned.

It’s very significant for a source completely separate from the bible to assert, “Hey, Jesus is the Christ and he visited us way over here on another continent.” And in 3 Nephi 16, Jesus explained he was going to visit other people. To me, the visitation of Christ to another continent and other people is a major addition to scripture.

I also thought of Mormon’s teachings regarding little children being saved.

I didn’t think of any other unique stuff in the Book of Mormon, but I found Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon. I think some are not really unique additions and I noted such in parentheses. Here are some points from the list:

The Relationship Between the Fall and the Atonement (unique)

Quote:

Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary only to compensate for their mistake. This interpretation is understandable because of the incomplete biblical account.

Fortunately, the Book of Mormon clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement. Lehi explained, “If Adam had not transgressed … (2 Ne. 2:22–23.)

On my mission in the mid-West, I found that the general sentiment was that Adam and Eve were just screw-ups, so I believe this clarification is significant. The information in the Book of Mormon is an addition to what is taught in the Bible.

Physical Resurrection (clarification)

I was surprised to find that some Christians don’t believe in a physical resurrection. The Bible teaches it, but maybe not clear enough. Alma 11:42–43 is very clear.

Universal Resurrection (clarification)

The bible teaches that all will be resurrected, but I don’t think it’s a common belief. 2 Nephi 9:22 and other verses make it clear.

No Law, No Condemnation (unique)

I am pretty sure this is not taught in the bible, but maybe it is. It is clearly taught in 2 Nephi 9:25 that those who die in ignorance are delivered by Christ. This is HUGE! It is totally different from commonly held beliefs among other Christian churches.

Revelation has Not Ceased (unique)

Mormon 9:7–8 is significant.

[Author]

Posts