Book of Mormon Foundational?

Is The Book of Mormon Latter Day Saints' foundation for their religion?
Ray Farmer

Is The Book of Mormon Latter Day Saints' foundation for their religion?

The Book of Mormon has little to do with the Church and certainly is not the foundation. The theology of the Book of Mormon is completely opposed to the system that the LDSaints believe. So why do they hang on to the Book of Mormon.

It is the religious equivalent to Click-bait. How so?

In their missionary efforts they try to get potential members (PM) to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. Click-bait. The PO reads some of it and finds deeply Christian ideas, most of which, if they were church goers, would be familiar. Salvation, justification, sanctification, relying on the merits of Christ, born again, grace and righteousness. The Holy Ghost will confirm all of those and other truths to the PM. The PM will get a testimony of the contents of the Book of Mormon. I have seen it over and over.

But click-bait is a trick. Once the PM knows that the principles taught in the Book of Mormon are true, the missionary will present the trick. They will reason thus: If the book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the LDSaint Church is true. If the church is true then the current president of the Church is a true prophet of God on the Face of the earth and speaks for God.

Of course that doesn't follow. If the Book of Mormon is true, it merely means Joseph translated it correctly. Joseph would be a prophet, perhaps, if he taught the doctrine of the Book of Mormon. Or the Church would be true if it stuck to the teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. But since neither of these are true, we can see that the Book of Mormon is merely click-bait.

J.N. Washburn said, "The book under consideration bears no necessary relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They could exist quite independently of each other. The book is not the product of the Church, for it was in existence before the Church was". (The Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon, 1954, p.10)

In other words, the LDSaints could just dump the Book of Mormon and not be affected in any way except for the loss of click-bait.

Terryl L. Givens said, "It has often been pointed out, however, that those beliefs most commonly associated with Mormonism are nowhere to be found in that text. Those expecting an exposition of peculiarly Mormon doctrine will be disappointed".

Grant Hardy said, "Joseph Smith did not refer to passages from the book in his writings or sermons, nor was it cited very often by early church leaders". (Grant Hardy in Royal Skousen ed., The Book of Mormon, the Earliest Text, Yale University Press, 2009, p. xxii)

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon is in no significant way the foundation of the Church. They do not believe what it says and recently the poor neglected Book has been a target of attack by them. Some claim it is incomplete, despite the Book claiming that it contains the fulness of the Gospel. Some claim it was not translated correctly! Others claim the prophets had a mistaken idea of the plan of redemption so they based their writings on a misconception derived from an Old Testament understanding of major doctrines.

Some here on Quora put forth that the Church's foundation is Jesus. The rejected Book of Mormon would differ:

2 Nephi 33:10 ....if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me;

Rodney Dale Walker

President Hinkley in a 1995 conference talk talked about the Foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He quoted the Apostle Paul Ephesians 2: 19- 22

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

He went on and indicated that the other three cornerstones are: The First Vision, The Book of Mormon, and the Restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John.

As you are aware the study course for Sunday School is a four year cycle: Old Testament, New Testament, The Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

So, yeah, the Book of Mormon is important.

Ray Farmer

Cornerstone: Book of Mormon

I am aware of the study course for Sunday School is a four year cycle. Indeed, it is the same cycle I followed as a Seminary teacher and Gospel Doctrine teacher. But none of this convinces me that any of those particular Books, especially the Bible and Book of Mormon, are foundational.

What may appear as an intense study of Scriptures is only what the class name indicates; Gospel Doctrine. My observation is that some scripture verses remotely understood as reinforcing a “Gospel Doctrine” is segregated from the whole book or epistle and dwelt upon. Other “troubling verses” involved in the reading assignment are easily avoided by use of taking time for announcements and soliciting comments on the segregated verse which more often than not turns into group therapy. How often do you hear something like “I am running out of time and have so much more prepared” after 20 minutes of announcements, welcomes, late start due to conversations or introduction of assignment by setting up historical context?

Cornerstone: First Vision

Sadly, this cornerstone is pretty weak. The cornerstone you cite is the 1838 highly edited version. The 1832 Version is so much better without the additions and contradictions that the 1838 version provides. the 1832 version is so much real and believable and I truly believe is a more common experience had among the Christians living and throughout the history of Christianity.

It is hard to accept for me that in composing the 1838 version that Joseph Smith would essentially be saying, “Oh! Didn’t I mention that God of the Universe was there? My bad.” Or, “I know I told you that at twelve I already determined that all the churches were not teaching the truth but at sixteen I went to plead for mercy to the wilderness. But now I am telling you that the reason that I went to the grove was to ask which I was to join at twelve” or “Jesus, the sole personage to appear, didn’t say anything at all about corrupt churches, although the inhabitants of the earth, the world, were wicked and He didn’t say anything about a restoration of a church but rather offered as the remedy the second coming. But now those are some details I am adding 6 years later”.

The visions seem to be a very sandy foundation on which to build. The only foundational aspect of the Vision is that if one accepts that there is nothing that follows that is unacceptable.

Cornerstone: The Restoration of the Priesthood

This is a subject that cannot be handled adequately in the time I have to devote here. But we know that Jesus is the Final High Priest. We also know that there is no mention of priests after Jesus’ earthly ministry, they having been symbolic of believers in the types and shadows of the Old Testament. We also suppose that John and the Three Nephites, living through the centuries, must have had this whatever authority you think necessary. Indeed, we read in the Book of Mormon of saints of God during the “dark ages”. You also point to Amos 3:7 to prove that there are prophets today, but dismiss the same if one were to suggest that prophets existed before said restoration. You point out Ephesians 4 and say there must be prophets until we come to a unity of faith. When that happen? Never, so there must have been prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers and pastors before the Restoration.

There certainly were individuals, maybe most, who apostatized, but the Church of the Lamb of God never did. The gates of hell did not prevail against it and the leaven in the lump never ceased spreading through the dough. The stone cut without hands did not pause as it rolled down the mountain. Hence, no restoration was necessary beyond the restoration of the fulness of the Gospel as provided by the New Covenant, the Book of Mormon.

Cornerstone: Prophets and Apostles

You cited, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone". Yet it is clear from the Book of Mormon that "the apostles and the prophets" is the Bible and therefore it should be a cornerstone! The word, THE, is instructive.

1 Nephi 13:39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

Ether 12:41 And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen.

The apostles were not “Living Oracles” among the Nephites. The Book of Mormon is very careful to distinguish their elders from the twelve apostles as “twelve disciples”. Therefore, the cornerstone is not living oracles but rather the Old and New Testaments. “God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them” are sure cornerstones upon which to build.

If one builds on what “the prophets and apostles have written”, one may escape the likelihood that one is receiving truth and not some guy giving his personal, though well-considered, opinion that may be found not to be the truth sometime in the future.

Finally, as hinted above, “the foundation of the apostles and prophets” is very, very different from “the foundation of apostles and prophets”.

Cornerstone: Jesus

I wish no commentary was necessary, but, alas! time has fled. I must leave this hoping that the obvious needs no elucidation.