Hi, I've always struggled with the BOM. Even on my mission, certain elements would bother me to the point I wouldnt read it. Things like: word-for-word KJV copy of Isaiah - some Isaiah that may not have yet been written at Nephi's time. Things that just seem out of place, horses, sheep, silk, elephants, revolutionary American political themes, etc. I love the beauty of the sermons, King B, Abinidi, Moroni but am finding it necessary to let go of my belief in the BOM as historical, i.e., actually translated from actual gold plates, actually buried by an ancient prophet. The Curch has admitted that it was translated largely without being present and the words were reflected in a stone placed in the bottom of a hat.
Over the last 6 months ive embarked on a self guided study of the NT. This has been a life changing experience. During this exercise, especially in the writings of Paul, I can see unmistakable themes and in some places near word for word content reflected in the BOM. I get it, they are both the same gospel, but what does the BOM add? It seems our most profound doctrines, degrees of glory, work for the dead, sealing powers are all NT concepts not addressed in the BOM. The doctrines in D&C seem to largely been resulting from Joseph's study of the bible.
My question is this... can we accept that the BOM, though inspiring, isn't literally what it says it is? Can the Church be "true" if the BOM isn't an historical record and instead is an inspired narrative from the mind and heart of Joseph? Can the Holy Ghost bear witness to true doctrine from a "non-historical" source? This has been weighing heavy on my heart. President Hinckley and others have drawn a stark all or nothing approach to these questions. Either 100% true or 100% false. If I've concluded (and confirmed it through payer) that Joseph's narrative regarding BOM origins isnt accurate, does that mean I must reject the church?
