In 1832, with the infant church barely two years old, the Lord announced to Joseph Smith that it stood condemned for not taking seriously the things which had been written, especially in the “new covenant,” the Book of Mormon.[1] One hundred and fifty four years later, President Ezra Taft Benson taught that the Church once more risked such condemnation.[2] Now I fear we again face that danger.
Of course, the Book of Mormon remains central to our religious identity. It is the keystone of our missionary efforts. We continue to encourage converts and youth to read it and pray to know whether it is true. But the actual details of what the Book of Mormon says are conspicuously absent from much of our practice and discussions. Instead, we seem to have reduced it to a mere artifact, a sign that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church is true.
Such behavior cannot be pleasing to the Lord, who described the Book of Mormon as containing the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[3] Joseph Smith said that we “would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”[4] To do so, however, we must actually follow what is written in its pages, not just rely on the fact of its existence.
Our regard for the actual words of the Book of Mormon is especially crucial at this time of turmoil within the Church.[5] As we collectively wrestle with what it means to be Mormon – how we should live our lives and run our Church – we would be well-served to return to the principles of the “new covenant.” Let us consider some of what that encompasses and what it does not.[6]
Perhaps surprisingly, the Book of Mormon does not include:
- Eternal Families. There is no promise of celestial marriage or eternal families in the entire book. Instead, even when the Book of Mormon does talk about families, the focus remains firmly on individual salvation, supported by family, church, and community.
- Perfect Families. There’s no such thing as a perfect family in the Book of Mormon. Laman and Lamuel should be all the reminder we need that even “goodly parents,” emphasizing the gospel at home as much as at church, can have really rotten children.[7] Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni were raised by one of the most compassionate leaders the Nephites ever had and then fought bitterly over the judgeship after his death.[8]
- Modern Temple Ordinances. Yes, the people of the Book of Mormon had temples. Nephi built them, Jacob and King Benjamin taught the people there, and the Savior visited one.[9] But as far as recorded, they used them as part of the Mosaic Law as a place for gathering and for animal sacrifices.[10] After the Savior’s visit, there is no further mention of their use.[11]
Does this mean that we should reject our modern teachings about eternal families or temple worship, or stop promoting strong families? Should we discard our Handbooks and manuals in favor of the Book of Mormon? Of course not. But might an effort to more closely follow Book of Mormon teaching lead us to reconsider where we place our emphasis and how we judge those among us?
As contained in the Book of Mormon, the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ does include:
- Christ, full of charity, compassion, and grace.[12]
- Priesthood servants.[13]
- Personal revelation.[14]
- The principles of fellowship and compassion that serve as the basis of programs like home and visiting teaching.[15]
- Warnings against pride, even among the faithful.[16]
- A rejection of polygamy.[17]
- Faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.[18]
I rejoice in the additional revelations given through Joseph Smith and his successors. Prophetic revelation is central to all the claims of the Book of Mormon. And I recognize the need for administrative authority (also a Book of Mormon principle) in the modern church. But I wish we would do a better job of looking to the contents of this “Testament of Jesus Christ” to guide us and set the standard for what it means to be a Mormon.[19] If the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” means anything, it must mean that the standards set by the Book of Mormon are sufficient to guide us home to that God who gave us life.[20]
__________
[1] D&C 84:54-58
[2] Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon – Keystone of Our Religion,” Oct. 1986 Genera Conference
[3] D&C 20:9
[4] Introduction to the Book of Mormon
[5] Have you been on social media lately?
[6] Obviously, this is not an attempt to be exhaustive.
[7] Despite the goodliness of Lehi and Sariah, Laman and Lamuel rejected the doctrines and authority of their prophets, Lehi and Nephi, and tried to kill Nephi. I would say that the fact that their father and two brothers served as prophets is plenty of evidence that the gospel was taught fully in their home.
[8] On Pahoran’s compassion, see his exchange of letters with Captain Moroni in Alma 60-61. His sons’ contention erupts in Helaman 1.
[9] 2 Nephi 5:16; Jacob 2; Mosiah 2-5; 3 Nephi 11:1
[10] Mosiah 2:1-6 is the most detailed explanation of how they used the Nephite temples.
[11] The last mention of a temple in the Book of Mormon is the Savior quoting Isaiah in 3 Nephi 24:1. His visit at the temple in Bountiful is the last mention of the temple as a location in the promised land.
[12] No list of these traits in the Book of Mormon could be exhaustive, but these are a few of my favorite passages in this regard: 2 Nephi 26:24-30, 3 Nephi 17, Helaman 5, and Mosiah 14.
[13] For example, see Jacob 1 and Mosiah 2
[14] For example, Enos 1
[15] See Moroni 6. This chapter is too often overshadowed in lesson by the chapters that follow it. It offers the clearest explanation of what worship was like at the pinnacle of Nephite civilization. It’s something to aspire to and contains many foundational principles that should guide own modern Church practices.
[16] For example, Alma 1:21-23
[17] See Jacob 3:20-25
[18] For example, 2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 27:14-17
[19] For example, what if we took Mosiah 18:8-11 as the standard for membership in the Church?
[20] See Alma 40:11. In case it remains unclear, this in not a Reformation-style argument for ‘sola scriptura.’ The necessity of priesthood authority, saving ordinances, and modern revelation are central messages of the Book of Mormon.
The BoM does not have anything on the kingdoms of glory or temple worship outside the Law of Moses because Joseph Smith hadn’t come up with that stuff yet. Also relevant, the BoM preaches a simplified Trinitarian godhead because Smith’s idea of the nature of God was still evolving.
The theology and doctrine of the BoM are a fingerprint of Smith’s early theological thinking, and are not a record of a group of ancient inhabitants of the Americas.
I don’t think ANYTHING has a fullness of anything that doesn’t have jacksh!t about the roles of women and specifically Heavenly Mother. The BoM all but erases 50% of God’s children. The whining Sariah (Nephi does a lovely job criticizing his mother), the faceless mothers of strippling warriors and Abish don’t really cut it for me. At least in the NT Jesus hangs out with a lot of women and their faith and friendships are documented well.
On the other hand, I like the idea that the extra stuff in our religion may not be quite right and the Jesus based Stuff contained in the BoM is really the most essential, (it would be lovely to hope much of the temple content isn’t Christ’s gospel since a lot of it I find awful)but there are some yucky things I really hope aren’t eternal Christ Gospel principles in the BoM as well.
Like the basis for rampant and swift and cruel excommunications (blot those names out!), the idea behind “if you’re righteous you’ll be rich and prosperous” and violence and death sentencing for people who live differently from church standards – all stuff in this perfect book, those don’t feel Jesus-y to me.
I’ve thought about this a LOT since my faith transition.
The Book of Mormon tells us almost nothing about what the Celestial Kingdom will actually be like – funny, considering that we are supposed to make every decision in this life based on the idea that the CK is awesome and great and we all want to go there. The B of M does say that not a hair of our heads will be lost. I’m a lot less concerned with follicular restoration, and a lot more concerned with the thought that it may well be my eternal destiny to bear infinite numbers of spirit children who are forbidden from communicating with me. You know, like our Heavenly Mother(s) are. That is literally the worst thing I can think of.
Andrew C,
I understand that perspective. It doesn’t happen to be mine, but it’s understandable. Though, I think from either perspective, using the Book of Mormon as our baseline would serve us well.
The temple is all over in the Book of Mormon. Read it, prayerfully and thoughtfully, with a specific eye for the temple, and you’ll see it everywhere.
Comment
S,
I completely agree with your frustrations about the Book of Mormon leaving out women in any meaningful way. It’s clearly the product of a highly patriarchal society (however you understand its origins). I don’t think that precludes it from having the ‘fulness of the gospel’ if that phrase means the principles of the gospel even though the people teaching those principles didn’t always exemplify them by living them fully. Only the Savior did that and he didn’t seem concerned about leaving the writing of His word to imperfect people.
Yes for the Jesus-y parts!
As far as the righteousness=riches, I don’t think that’s what the BoM actually teaches (though many members believe that it does). I’ve written about that here: http://rationalfaiths.com/riches-righteous/
I also read the excommunication policies in the Book of Mormon differently (they don’t strike me as rampant and swift), but that’s a subject for more study and a future post.
The Book of Mormon is certainly not perfect (the prophets who wrote it were clear about that), but I think it does set the best standards for us.
Don,
That may very well be. Certainly I’ve gained insight into the temple from the Book of Mormon (particularly the Isaiah chapters). But it’s not held up as a standard of membership in the Book of Mormon in the way that I feel it has become in the Church today. Instead, the focus is always on the basics of coming to Christ.
Joni,
To me, what you’ve touched on is a key reason for having a Book of Mormon-based faith. Joseph Smith said that, as revolutionary as D&C 76 was, it’s only a 100th part of what could be revealed. Working with such minimal information, I think it is very likely that we have distorted what little we know. I’d rather focus on the message of the Book of Mormon (salvation v. not-salvation) than the particularities of which kingdom we are aiming for and how. Which is not to say I’m not grateful for that revelation. Just that I think it can be a distraction that gets us especially very “works” focused.
But much of that is a subject for another post.
Bible fan fiction, plagiarized from the King James Bible, Apocrypha, View of the Hebrews, and The Wonders of Nature; written in Elizabethan English with a spattering of 19th century English; containing numerous instances where the Nephite writers mimic wording from the New Testament—a document to which they had no access; full of anachronisms; unsupported by geography, archaeology, genetics, and realistic population growth models…
This is an odd post. At first read it seemed to me to be yet another sly argument to downplay distinctive LDS teachings and practices and retreat to those things inoffensive to all; that is, to a “basic” Christian message acceptable by any other Protestant denomination. The author sensed he has a problem here, and provided a disclaimer at the very bottom, in Footnote 20, stating this is not what he is doing. And yet the bulk of the post remains. Two things:
“But the actual details of what the Book of Mormon says are conspicuously absent from much of our practice and discussions. Instead, we seem to have reduced it to a mere artifact, a sign that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Church is true.”
I have no idea how to evaluate this, or how the author did so. How did he perceive a lack in Book of Mormon devotion? Is it just malaise? Did he do a statistical analysis of General Conference talks and those in his ward? And how on earth is he measuring “practice” in one person or in their thousands? How does one measure “details” from a book in the “practice” of anyone? In any event, neither sentence describes my experience or observations. “Actual details” of the Book of Mormon message are not only not “conspicuously absent”, they aren’t absent at all in either practice or discussion as far as I can tell; that is, I perceive no lack requiring an explanation or analysis.
Second, the Book of Mormon does not reject polygamy. It rejects unauthorized polygamy. There’s a big difference. The author’s citation for this in Jacob stops short by five verses. See Jacob 2:30.
Tim Bone,
Thanks for your feedback.
For polygamy, I should have also referenced my earlier piece on the subject: http://rationalfaiths.com/polygamy-and-the-modern-mormon/ Though I expect you won’t like it either.
I don’t see fn 20 as a reversal of the argument or a disclaimer. Rather, it struck me that the final sentence, *taken out of context*, could be seen as a sort of Reformation call to ditch the trappings of the LDS Church while holding up the Book of Mormon as a legitimizer. This is NOT what I am suggesting, as I hoped was clear from the rest of the post. I’m sorry you didn’t see that message throughout.
I am, of course, only speaking from my limited experience. I do not have the time, resources, or inclination to systematically measure Book of Mormon discussion or practice in governing our worldwide church. But then again, this is just a blog post, so I’m not sure what more you were expecting to find here…
As one example that may be accessible to both of us since it was very public, I think it is worth considering the recent furor over the policy changes. However you felt about them, I noticed very little mention of the Book of Mormon in guiding our policy decisions, their justification, or their non-justification. We might as well have been the Southern Baptists for all we cited this distinct book of scripture, written for our day but conspicuously silent on this issue or even in our argument about it. To me, that says something profound about where we (collectively, as a church) look for answers to life’s vexing challenges. You’re right that many may be personally using it as their guide (as I do and assume you do, too). But as an institution it doesn’t seem nearly as prominent as I’d expect given our teachings about it.
That’s really the larger point I was trying to get at. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. I’m glad your local congregation and friends are so much more successful in making the Book of Mormon a central part of your worship and decision-making.
I think it would be hard for today’s “neoclassic economics” inclined church to fully embrace the book of mormon today. 4th Nephi states that communal living was the zenith of society, not the top down model the church worships today. Also, the book clearly predicts that the native americans will rise up and possibly take over when the gentiles fail. I don’t think the church believes that any more.
In my opinion, just as JS moved on from it, almost immediately, the church will stay away from what it says, keeping it as a faith object only. In reality, this is what the church wants with all of the cannon because looking too closely will actually harm faith. There are so many contradictions with the bible, D&C, BofA and a total lack of historical evidence for the BofM that the church cannot use them too much. Just trust their authority and focus on what is said today.
The Book of Mormon continues to challenge me. I’m trying to move beyond prooftexting to support my already set beliefs and instead allow the text to challenge me. That’s hard. But that is what scripture should do.
Jason L,
Thank you for redirecting me to your April post, Polygamy and the Modern Mormon. The modern Mormon should think of polygamy the same way the 19thC Mormon did – as a commandment of God given to Joseph Smith. Actually, you have it exactly correct in your post – plural marriage is unacceptable and ruinous outside of God’s sanction. With God’s sanction it is neither. This is the clear teaching of both Jacob 2 and D&C 132. Polygamy was clearly sanctioned for Abraham, Jacob and others in the Old Testament. It was not sanctioned among Book of Mormon peoples. It was again sanctioned, indeed commanded, in the time of Joseph Smith. The idea/hope that Joseph Smith was right about the Restoration but wrong about polygamy is untenable. Challenging as this is, they are a package deal. At the time of your April post I left my extended argument and a follow-up as replies, and they are still available there. Since polygamy tends to cycle around on this website, I will post my remarks again when relevant.
As to your other issue, I wonder why you didn’t include in your original post the very recent Church policy on same-sex marriage as Exhibit A in your contention that the Church is ignoring the Book of Mormon? In any event, I do not find the lack of a specific reference to (or from) the Book of Mormon as invalidating or vitiating either that Church policy/statement or any other, including The Proclamation on the Family or The Living Christ.
Tim Bone,
Thanks for reminding me about your comments on that earlier post – I’d forgotten. I’m glad we can agree on some broad areas and expect we’ll have to agree to disagree in others. I think it IS worth being clear that even when it’s been sanctioned, it’s practice IS sometimes ‘ruinous’ to those who try to live it, especially those plural wives who feel trapped by the spiritual requirement.
As far as the Church’s policy on same-sex marriage and the children of homosexuals, I didn’t make that exhibit A for a few reasons: (1) I think we’ve reached a point of saturation on that subject and (2) I didn’t want that to become the focus of a post that I think speaks to a broader issue.
If you don’t care about whether our Church policies are driven by or connected with the Book of Mormon, or whether we as members use that for a standard in responding to others or to Church policies, that’s fine. But I do, which is what motivated me to write the post.
Seth,
I agree that it would be very difficult for our pro-capitalist Church to embrace Book of Mormon messages about wealth. But I trace most of that to the 1950s and our commitment to anti-communism/continuing struggles for mainstream status. Because the change was rooted in historical conditions, I believe it could be reversed under new conditions (see: modern Catholicism and Pope Francis). I continue to hold out hope.
Michael Barker,
I feel the same way. I wish we’d do a better job of holding up all of the scriptures as a challenges instead of using them to re-affirm why we’re right. I noticed with yesterday with another Sunday School lesson on James that focused much more on Joseph Smith than on our obligations to helping those in need and being the peace we desire around us. But I continue to believe that those teachers mean well, that they do love the scriptures, and so there’s room for growth.
Jason L,
Fair enough. I meant “ruinous” in the sense of God’s condemnation resting on an individual or individuals. Of course I care about the Book of Mormon. It just doesn’t have to be explicitly cited on Church pronouncements to prove to me that it means something to Church leaders. I just looked at General Handbook 2 and found about 50 references to the Book of Mormon in general or to specific scriptures from it. (I didn’t search for references to or from the other Standard Works, but would expect to find the Bible and D&C well represented in the Handbook, as I would in Handbook 1 as well.)