Logic for necessity of BOM

[jay santos]

I've heard (and taught myself) the following logic many times. Most recently, I heard it yesterday in church.

The Bible is good, but it's incomplete. Some good stuff was taken out. Plain and precious truths, etc.

The Book of Mormon came around to fix this problem and now we have a complete picture of the gospel.

The problem is that the Book of Mormon doesn't contain any extra-Biblical doctrine. When it came out, one of the criticisms of it was that it didn't add any new doctrine and sounded like anything you'd hear being preached by a typical Baptist/Methodist New England preacher.

All the extra stuff: temple ceremony, eternal family, polygamy, deification, cosmos, move away from Trinity, God has a body, etc, all the stuff that separates us from mainstream Christianity came later and is not contained in the Book of Mormon.

I would assume after hearing the sacrament talk I heard yesterday that if I opened up the Book of Mormon I would read all about this other differentiating doctrine.

I think it's odd that none of these important doctrines are taught in the BOM. I also think it's strange that I ran with this logic and taught it as an intro to BOM to investigators even after reading the BOM many times and understanding its contents.

[Jacob]

Some of those you list are not so "important doctrines." I think that would be a fair criticism of your post. Polygamy, deification, cosmos. Several of those are not even hard doctrines.

The BOM does make clear some important doctrines, though most are not uniquely mormon. I.e. infant baptism, resurrection of the dead, much more depth regarding the atonement and plan of salvation, spirits/paradise/prison role of faith and works, prayer.

I'll agree that the BOM didn't clarify trinity doctrine at all. If anything, it supports the protestant idea of a trinity.

[TripletDaddy]

I've heard (and taught myself) the following logic many times. Most recently, I heard it yesterday in church.

The Bible is good, but it's incomplete. Some good stuff was taken out. Plain and precious truths, etc.

The Book of Mormon came around to fix this problem and now we have a complete picture of the gospel.

The problem is that the Book of Mormon doesn't contain any extra-Biblical doctrine. When it came out, one of the criticisms of it was that it didn't add any new doctrine and sounded like anything you'd hear being preached by a typical Baptist/Methodist New England preacher.

All the extra stuff: temple ceremony, eternal family, polygamy, deification, cosmos, move away from Trinity, God has a body, etc, all the stuff that separates us from mainstream Christianity came later and is not contained in the Book of Mormon.

I would assume after hearing the sacrament talk I heard yesterday that if I opened up the Book of Mormon I would read all about this other differentiating doctrine.

I think it's odd that none of these important doctrines are taught in the BOM. I also think it's strange that I ran with this logic and taught it as an intro to BOM to investigators even after reading the BOM many times and understanding its contents.

I mentioned this previously in another thread, but for the longest time, the intro section of the BOM used to say that the Book of Mormon AND the Bible contain the fullness of the Gospel. Quite recently, that sentence was removed from online version of the BOM introduction. I guess something has changed with the Church's official position on whether they both contain the fullness of the Gospel.

[Rosebud]

At the time the Book of Mormon was published, Joseph hadn't yet synthesized many hermetic ideas into Mormon theology. Thus the obvious disconnect between the doctrines of the BOM and ideas like multiple wives, etc.

That said, the whole divining rod, discovery of gold plates thingy has a lot in common with the alchemy of the time period. It's fairly clear, then, that hermetic ideas were very much on his radar at the time of publishing even though not many of them made their way into the bible-based book.

[DapperDan]

The BOM does make clear some important doctrines, though most are not uniquely mormon. I.e. infant baptism, resurrection of the dead, much more depth regarding the atonement and plan of salvation, spirits/paradise/prison role of faith and works, prayer.

Do you feel that those items or the clarifications are crucial to salvation? In other words, if all those things were removed or left unclear would man not be able to be saved?

[MarkGrace]

Jay, why are you wasting time at church? I thought you bounced?

[jay santos]

Jay, why are you wasting time at church? I thought you bounced?

No I doubt there's anything that would change me from status as active LDS.

[CardiacCoug]

You're just not spinning it correctly, Jay. The fact that Joseph Smith later went against the anti-polygamy direction in the Book of Mormon (see below) proves he really did translate it rather than write it himself.

I remember asking something like this when I was in seminary: How does the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the Gospel when it leaves out so many LDS beliefs? I think what I was told is that "fullness of the Gospel" just means Christ and the atonement.

Jacob 1:15: And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24-27: Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.... Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.

Mosiah 11:2: For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines.

Ether 10:5: Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines.

[SportUTE]

What is "the Gospel"? It's a pretty narrow band of doctrine according to Christ:

3 Nephi 27:

13Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

The BOM teaches those key doctrines much more plainly within that context than the New Testament.

[LA Ute]

I've heard (and taught myself) the following logic many times. Most recently, I heard it yesterday in church.

The Bible is good, but it's incomplete. Some good stuff was taken out. Plain and precious truths, etc.

The Book of Mormon came around to fix this problem and now we have a complete picture of the gospel.

The problem is that the Book of Mormon doesn't contain any extra-Biblical doctrine. When it came out, one of the criticisms of it was that it didn't add any new doctrine and sounded like anything you'd hear being preached by a typical Baptist/Methodist New England preacher.

All the extra stuff: temple ceremony, eternal family, polygamy, deification, cosmos, move away from Trinity, God has a body, etc, all the stuff that separates us from mainstream Christianity came later and is not contained in the Book of Mormon.

I would assume after hearing the sacrament talk I heard yesterday that if I opened up the Book of Mormon I would read all about this other differentiating doctrine.

I think it's odd that none of these important doctrines are taught in the BOM. I also think it's strange that I ran with this logic and taught it as an intro to BOM to investigators even after reading the BOM many times and understanding its contents.

Just off the top pf my head, I think the BofM clarifies points of the gospel that would otherwise be ambiguous or debatable because of the Bible's imperfections. Examples:

• Joseph Smith's divine calling (see Givens' By the Hand of Mormon for this, in detail; also, “Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon” (E.T. Benson); so all the other doctrines you mention that are outside the BofM hang on the Book's truthfulness
• The literal, corporeal resurrection of Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 11)
• Mercy and justice (Alma 42)
• Infant baptism (Moroni 8)
• A much-clarified Sermon on the Mount (the "Sermon at the Temple")
• The necessity of opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2)
• The relationship among faith, grace and works (...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do")

It's important to me that we have a clear understanding of these concepts. I can't imagine my own faith without them.

As for all the additional beliefs, the 9th Article of Faith covers that. Remember, for us the canon is not closed.

[jay santos]

Just off the top pf my head, I think the BofM clarifies points of the gospel that would otherwise be ambiguous or debatable because of the Bible's imperfections. Examples:

• Joseph Smith's divine calling (see Givens' By the Hand of Mormon for this, in detail; also, “Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon” (E.T. Benson); so all the other doctrines you mention that are outside the BofM hang on the Book's truthfulness
• The literal, corporeal resurrection of Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 11)
• Mercy and justice (Alma 42)
• Infant baptism (Moroni 8)
• A much-clarified Sermon on the Mount (the "Sermon at the Temple")
• The necessity of opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2)
• The relationship among faith, grace and works (...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do")

It's important to me that we have a clear understanding of these concepts. I can't imagine my own faith without them.

As for all the additional beliefs, the 9th Article of Faith covers that. Remember, for us the canon is not closed.

Resurrection of Christ is pretty clear in the Bible.

Infant baptism and other anti-Catholicism, I agree, it's more clear in the BOM.

Sermon on the Mount more clear? That's a stretch.

Grace/works and justice/mercy? Yeah, clear as mud. Thus all the debates we've had here over the years, and you have every other week in gospel doctrine.

I love the doctrine of the BOM, don't get me wrong. This is not a slam on the doctrine of the BOM. It's a little bit of a slam on the train of logic that's commonly used for the need for the BOM.

[LA Ute]

Resurrection of Christ is pretty clear in the Bible.

I was thinking of efforts like these: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar"]Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:11_08_6972_John_Dominic_Crossan.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/11_08_6972_John_Dominic_Crossan.jpg/300px-11_08_6972_John_Dominic_Crossan.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@co mmons/thumb/8/81/11_08_6972_John_Dominic_Crossan.jpg/300px-11_08_6972_John_Dominic_Crossan.jpg[/ame] to challenge the literality of the resurrection, along with the BofM's role as a "Second Witness" that "proves" the Biblical account. It thoroughly refutes the Jesus Seminar point of view.

Infant baptism and other anti-Catholicism, I agree, it's more clear in the BOM.

Oh, sweet harmony!

Sermon on the Mount more clear? That's a stretch.

Lots of smart people agree with me. That means I am right - just ask SU. Seriously, John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount is a must-read on that subject. I know some here don't think much of Welch, but the book is solid.

Grace/works and justice/mercy? Yeah, clear as mud. Thus all the debates we've had here over the years, and you have every other week in gospel doctrine.

I don't think it makes our beliefs on grace clear, but they are much clearer because of the BofM. Without it, many Mormons would have written grace completely out of the gospel.

I love the doctrine of the BOM, don't get me wrong. This is not a slam on the doctrine of the BOM. It's a little bit of a slam on the train of logic that's commonly used for the need for the BOM.

I agree we could do better, collectively, at explaining why the BofM is important, but the main reason it's important is that people get their testimonies by reading it.

[DapperDan]

I agree we could do better, collectively, at explaining why the BofM is important, but the main reason it's important is that people get their testimonies by reading it.

Can one not gain a testimony from the Bible alone?

[LA Ute]

Can one not gain a testimony from the Bible alone?

Not of the Restoration and of Joseph Smith's divine calling. (Notice I am not referring to JS's infallibility, just the divinity of his calling.)

[Moliere]

I don't think it makes our beliefs on grace clear, but they are much clearer because of the BofM. Without it, many Mormons would have written grace completely out of the gospel.

This is a very good point. The BoM acts as an anchor of sorts to the Gospel. Sure tangential things are taught and believed, and then forgotten or correlated out, but what is in the BoM remains as an anchor to our doctrine.