The Book of Mormon & Bible

[Guest]

I was inspired by a post in another thread to ponder the use of the Bible by Mormons vs. Non-Mormons and where the Book of Mormon fits into this.

I remember Truman Madsen saying that Joseph felt it quite ponderous to consider being the mortal who was responsible for bringing forth a new book that was to be placed "side-by-side" with the Bible.  This indicates an equality in the books.  Yet, in the introductory pages of every copy of the BoM we read Joseph's quote 

Quote

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct (speaking of it doctrinally, not grammatically) of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and that a man could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.

Three statements

1. Most correct
2. Keystone
3. Nearer to God

This would seem to place the Bible second to the BoM.  I'm wondering about this.  How can they be equal and yet the one is higher?  I don't think one is higher.  How can this be considering the above quote?

As for myself, I certainly study, read, know, and reference the BoM far more than I do the Bible.  But the BoM assumes that you've already read the Bible and are familiar with all the stories and teachings.  If you've never read the Bible, the BoM would make very little sense since it references it so much.  But the Bible makes statements that sectarians don't understand to the point where they've had to make things up with very little substance to them.  Only with complete scripture can the Bible actually make sense.  They seem to work together so much that it is difficult to study one without the other.

Quote

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 ¶ And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

While many Bible believing Christians can certainly find guidance to become fine God-fearing people by study of the Bible alone.  I'm not detracting from this at all. But there is something lost when you're only working with half of the body or less.  As Mormons, we use both books (and others) to get a more complete picture.  For a Mormon, the study of the Bible cannot be complete without the references to the other standard works (and vice versa).  And many of the dangers of false interpretation are mitigated by references from living oracles.  Without these, how can a "Bible study" be complete?  Without the Bible, how can a study of the BoM, or D&C, or PoGP be complete?  They can't.

So, as a means of reaching out to our sectarian brothers, we can certainly study the Bible with them.  But there is no way that can be as fufilling for a Mormon than a complete study with all the scriptures.  It would be like asking a man with two eyes to pluck one eye out so we can study with a one-eyed man.  What would motivate us to do so?

Edited January 12, 2018 by Guest

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was inspired by a post in another thread to ponder the use of the Bible by Mormons vs. Non-Mormons and where the Book of Mormon fits into this.

I remember Truman Madsen saying that Joseph felt it quite ponderous to consider being the mortal who was responsible for bringing forth a new book that was to be placed "side-by-side" with the Bible.  This indicates an equality in the books.  Yet, in the introductory pages of every copy of the BoM we read Joseph's quote 

Three statements

1. Most correct
2. Keystone
3. Nearer to God

This would seem to place the Bible second to the BoM.  I'm wondering about this.  How can they be equal and yet the one is higher?  I don't think one is higher.  How can this be considering the above quote?

As for myself, I certainly study, read, know, and reference the BoM far more than I do the Bible.  But the BoM assumes that you've already read the Bible and are familiar with all the stories and teachings.  If you've never read the Bible, the BoM would make very little sense since it references it so much.  But the Bible makes statements that sectarians don't understand to the point where they've had to make things up with very little substance to them.  Only with complete scripture can the Bible actually make sense.  They seem to work together so much that it is difficult to study one without the other.

While many Bible believing Christians can certainly find guidance to become fine God-fearing people by study of the Bible alone.  I'm not detracting from this at all. But there is something lost when you're only working with half of the body or less.  As Mormons, we use both books (and others) to get a more complete picture.  For a Mormon, the study of the Bible cannot be complete without the references to the other standard works (and vice versa).  And many of the dangers of false interpretation are mitigated by references from living oracles.  Without these, how can a "Bible study" be complete?  Without the Bible, how can a study of the BoM, or D&C, or PoGP be complete?  They can't.

So, as a means of reaching out to our sectarian brothers, we can certainly study the Bible with them.  But there is no way that can be as fufilling for a Mormon than a complete study with all the scriptures.  It would be like asking a man with two eyes to pluck one eye out so we can study with a one-eyed man.  What would motivate us to do so?

Just a couple of thoughts:

We are side by side with the Lord, though we are imperfect.

We sustain the Bible as canon even though it is correct only as far as it is translated correctly; we likewise sustain fallible servants of God who also stand side by side with the Lord.

Without the Bible, we would not understand the Book of Mormon very well, especially its references to God’s covenants with Israel , the transition from the law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ, and the various references to Adam and Eve and their story.

Without the Bible, it is hard to tell what would have preserved a semblance of Christianity for centuries, or what would have prompted Joseph Smith to seek wisdom in the way he did.

As a second witness, the pair are significant. So I think the invitation is always extended to our sectarian brothers to read the Book or Mormon with us, and to extend to our LDS brothers to read the Bible with us.

[Anddenex]

@Carborendum, well thought out introduction and question. Your thoughts brought the following verse to my heart and mind, "For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God." (Source) Every word that proceeds from the mouth of God falls within (all are equal, and all have their importance and may be more important at specific times in our lives):

1) Personal revelation
2) Prophetic revelation
3) Canon scripture

The Book of Mormon was specifically meant for the last days, the days before the coming of our Lord -- his return in glory and majesty. The Book of Mormon is equal, and yet for our day it carries more importance specifically to the revelations therein. As in the Self-Reliance class, we read the following quote regarding the Book of Mormon, M. Russell Ballard: “The Book of Mormon, above all other books that I know of, is the greatest source we have for answers to real-life problems” (in “We Add Our Witness,” Ensign, Mar. 1989, 8).

When we think of the purpose of the Book of Mormon, its importance for our day, people will draw closer to God by reading the Book of Mormon and abiding by its precepts in correlation with the two other items mentioned. The Book of Mormon was never meant to be alone, sole scripture. It was meant to be the Bibles companion and to remove false doctrines that currently exist from the philosophies of men through the apostasy. And now I am just going to quote your last statement because it is an excellent analogy:

Quote

So, as a means of reaching out to our sectarian brothers, we can certainly study the Bible with them.  But there is no way that can be as fufilling for a Mormon than a complete study with all the scriptures.  It would be like asking a man with two eyes to pluck one eye out so we can study with a one-eyed man.  What would motivate us to do so?

EDIT: This is also in part of why I don't like conversations that try to pit methods of receiving or having truth against each other. They are equal; although, at times, one method may be more important than the other, but does not make the other methods of less value. Example, when people try to pit scripture, prophetic words, or personal revelation using Nephi and Laban. It is error to do so.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Anddenex

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

EDIT: This is also in part of why I don't like conversations that try to pit methods of receiving or having truth against each other. They are equal; although, at times, one method may be more important than the other, but does not make the other methods of less value. Example, when people try to pit scripture, prophetic words, or personal revelation using Nephi and Laban. It is error to do so.

This is the same thing with all other Christian Faiths pitting their interpretation of the gospel against other denominations to "sell" their versions... it's what led Joseph Smith to kneel down and ask God for help.  One of the things that made me stop and look at LDS more closely is the AoF 11.

[person0]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

How can they be equal and yet the one is higher?  I don't think one is higher.  How can this be considering the above quote?

The Book of Mormon was specifically written for our day.  We are more often counseled during General Conference to read the Book of Mormon than the Bible.

That aside, most studied mainstream Christians will state that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  Generally understood, what they actually believe in is the inerrancy of the original manuscripts.  There are exactly 0 original manuscripts currently known to still exist.  What does that mean, that individual translations of the Bible are accepted to possibly contain error, but you just almost never hear the mainstream Christian populous talk about this.

Because of the errors and possibly intentional alterations by man, and the lack of availability of the originals, the existing translation of the Book of Mormon is 'superior' to the Bible, but only from a doctrinal correctness perspective.  From a usefulness for study perspective, they are equal as you have suggested, and we must use them both to gain a full understanding of truth.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This would seem to place the Bible second to the BoM.  I'm wondering about this.  How can they be equal and yet the one is higher?  I don't think one is higher.  How can this be considering the above quote?

Excellent topic @Carborendum!

For me, setting beside each other is a mark of authority- that all scripture is scripture.  The Book of John is scripture same as the the Book of Mosiah and Numbers.  Still, some books are more direct/efficient at teaching about the big points of the Gospel than others (for example, John teaches much more directly than Numbers).  In that regard, reading John teaches brings you to Christ more quickly/directly than Numbers.  Still, they're all still scripture, bound alongside each other.   

It is the same with the Book of Mormon: it and the Bible are all still scripture, bound alongside each other, but one does teach more directly about Christ.  

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, as a means of reaching out to our sectarian brothers, we can certainly study the Bible with them.  But there is no way that can be as fufilling for a Mormon than a complete study with all the scriptures.  It would be like asking a man with two eyes to pluck one eye out so we can study with a one-eyed man.  What would motivate us to do so?

I got a couple of disjointed thoughts about this:

- One can ask the same question about the book within the Bible itself.  Mark gains much by studying John and studying Ruth, etc.   No scripture (not even a verse) should be studied on an island.

- Still, there is something to be said for detailed scripture study, focusing on one chapter/book at a time, rather than trying to swallow the entire (scripture) elephant whole at once.  

-For interfaith situations (like reading the Bible with nonLDS Christians), I do think that is extremely good for sharing Christ/testimonies and building bridges.  Even if it is a only-staying on the first line process.  You got to read the first line before going to the next.  And we can rejoice in similarities with other Christian groups while respecting their right to worship according to their own conscious.  I find that such studies to greatly enhance my love of those other Christians.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

EDIT: This is also in part of why I don't like conversations that try to pit methods of receiving or having truth against each other. They are equal; although, at times, one method may be more important than the other, but does not make the other methods of less value. Example, when people try to pit scripture, prophetic words, or personal revelation using Nephi and Laban. It is error to do so.

1

Agreed.  Man is imperfect, and they help us understand them.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Excellent topic @Carborendum!

For me, setting beside each other is a mark of authority- that all scripture is scripture.  The Book of John is scripture same as the the Book of Mosiah and Numbers.  Still, some books are more direct/efficient at teaching about the big points of the Gospel than others (for example, John teaches much more directly than Numbers).  In that regard, reading John teaches brings you to Christ more quickly/directly than Numbers.  Still, they're all still scripture, bound alongside each other.   

It is the same with the Book of Mormon: it and the Bible are all still scripture, bound alongside each other, but one does teach more directly about Christ.  

I got a couple of disjointed thoughts about this:

- One can ask the same question about the book within the Bible itself.  Mark gains much by studying John and studying Ruth, etc.   No scripture (not even a verse) should be studied on an island.

- Still, there is something to be said for detailed scripture study, focusing on one chapter/book at a time, rather than trying to swallow the entire (scripture) elephant whole at once.  

-For interfaith situations (like reading the Bible with nonLDS Christians), I do think that is extremely good for sharing Christ/testimonies and building bridges.  Even if it is a only-staying on the first line process.  You got to read the first line before going to the next.  And we can rejoice in similarities with other Christian groups while respecting their right to worship according to their own conscious.  I find that such studies to greatly enhance my love of those other Christians.

I like this – even in the Book of Mormon, using the Book of Omni for example, we see an interesting array of “value” in the content that I suspect will ultimately, perhaps in a way not readily apparent now, lead to greater understanding and appreciation of how God works.

For example, Omni confesses he was a wicked man, but kept the plates according to the commandments of his fathers.  Amaron, wrote only a few, but faithful, sayings that acknowledged the Lord’s hand. Chemish, his brother, only wrote that he wrote because he was told to! His son, Abinadom, knew of no revelation and said that enough was written. Amaleki gave a very informative and faithful record of history and testimony.

The Book of Omni reflects a varied collection of value as does the Bible, but in a microcosm, and these were physical plates passed down through the same family, not disparate sources cobbled together much later! It just goes to show that God works with His fallible children, and by small means makes great things come to pass. That He does so is all the more miraculous to me.

[Traveler]

I will begin with some thoughts about the “Bible”.  Many Christians (including LDS) think of the Bible as a single book of scripture.  That is the first of the big flaws in what many Christians believe concerning – the Bible.  There are thousands of ancient manuscript texts (books) that are the foundation of today’s Bible.  The word or term “Bible” means the equivalent of library or books.  Of those thousands of manuscripts there are no two that are identical.  In addition, there are what are called “families” of similar manuscripts – for example; “Septuagint”, “Masoretic”, and “Samaritan” to name just a few. 

Which family of texts are considered the most correct has changed radically over history.   For most of history it was believed that the Masoretic text were the most accurate but with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scriptures it is now believed that the Samaritan is the most accurate – and previously the Samaritan was considered the most inaccurate.

Also of all the manuscripts left to us from antiquity – none – not a single manuscript is original.  There are no autographs and there are no autograms.  An autograph is a manuscript written by the hand of the author.  An autogram is a copy of an autogram made in the same era and a direct copy of the autograph.

Many Christians argue that the “copies” have not altered much from the original – this is odd because there are no two copies that are the same.  Indeed, so varied are the text that of all the copies of the Bible that have ever been published there are no direct translations from any individual manuscript – with one exception and that is the book of Isaiah – and the reason for that is because of the uniquely preserved Isaiah manuscript found with the Dead Sea Scriptures.

Often there are passages of our modern Bible with what is called variant readings.  One of the copies of the King James version of the Bible that I keep in my library has all the passages where the interpretation has variant readings printed with italics.  A variant reading is where the translation used is in high dispute. I can open that bible to any page and always there are several parts in italics indicating that there are disputed variant readings to those passages which there is no consistent agreement among the experts that created the version we use. 

The Bible as we have it today is more of a smorgasbord selection both of which ancient text are used and the variant reading are selected.  Not only must we understand the Bible scripture in their ancient context but also within the context of the scholars that are expert in creating for us a translation into our language.  It is a historical fact that the human attempts to understand the Bible has been more divisive than uniting of Christianity.  Whenever I am discussing doctrine that the meaning of biblical verses – if someone says they believe a particular thing because the Bible says so; I am greatly concerned.  Mostly I am concerned that they have preconceived notions about what they want to believe and that they reference scripture, not to learn anything to expand their understanding but only to find excuse for their preconceived notion.  Goodness even Satan can use the Bible scriptures that way – as he did in Luke Chapter 3 in tempting Christ.

As the time of the return of the Messiah draws near – it makes a great deal of sense to me that there needs to be a restoration.  Not so much of doctrine but of a willingness to learn and discover and become pure and holy through ordinances – to prepare a people ready to learn of Christ and covenant with him to become disciplined in his discipleship so that there is a people that Christ can return to.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

No scripture (not even a verse) should be studied on an island.

Wow.  Never knew this.  Good thing I don't live in Hawaii.  Wait, maybe this means I should move to Hawaii.  I'm going to have to ponder.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Wow.  Never knew this.  Good thing I don't live in Hawaii.  Wait, maybe this means I should move to Hawaii.  I'm going to have to ponder.

You need to give a two week notice at the compound before you do anything young lady! 

[zil]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You need to give a two week notice at the compound before you do anything young lady! 

Yeah, yeah, whatever.  Not all the tunnels are fully sealed off, you know.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Yeah, yeah, whatever.  Not all the tunnels are fully sealed off, you know.

no wonder attendance has been so low at dinner lately. 

[zil]

Just now, MormonGator said:

no wonder attendance has been so low at dinner lately. 

Poor Gator.  I'll process a few more applications.  We wouldn't want you to feel lonely or unappreciated.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That Pew survey from a couple years ago suggests that we’re doing better than we think we are, and certainly better than most of our Christian cousins are doing.

I think you're referring to this:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

Quote

“27% of Jews, 22% of atheists and agnostics, and 20% of Mormons score in the top 10% of all respondents in overall number of correct answers to religious knowledge questions, getting at least 26 questions right. As will be discussed in detail later in this report, these groups display greater religious knowledge even when education and other factors are held constant. Mormons outperform Jews as well as atheists and agnostics on questions about the Bible but do not perform as well as the other two groups on questions having to do with world religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.”

My purpose in creating the original post was to explain that while we do study the Bible, I don't know what the benefit would be of studying "ONLY" the Bible with our sectarian cousins.