The Keystone of Our Religion

[clbent04]

I've long had my doubts concerning the usual interpretation of Joseph's observation, The Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion-- meaning, the keystone is the most important stone in the arch; take it away, and the whole arch crumbles.  What would happen if the BOM was taken away? Would we no longer have the fullness of the gospel? Would everything crumble? No, we would still have the Bible. The Bible also contains the fullness of the gospel in and of itself. We would still have the Priesthood, prophets, apostles, revelation....

I've made a study of arches.  Not studied the subject like a construction engineer, but just like a dilettante.  Turns out, just as I suspected, construction-wise, or engineering-wise, the keystone is NOT the most important stone in the arch.  Take away ANY stone in the arch and it will collapse just as surely and just as quickly as if the keystone had been removed.  But the mythology of the keystone illustrates a point, even if the physics doesn't support it. 

Nevertheless, I've come up with a novel interpretation-- perhaps not exactly what Joseph intended, but who knows.  The Roman arch-- or actually the Etruscan arch, as the Romans got the arch (and almost everything else quintessentially Roman) from the Etruscans-- as I say, the keystone in the Etruscan arch was usually decorated with a statue of the face of the city's protective god, to ward off evil, plague, famine etc and protect from attack.  Many Roman keystones were similarly adorned-- a practice extending right up into the Middle Ages and occasionally into the present. 

This is a novel way of thinking about Joseph's observation.  The Book of Mormon is imprinted with the face of Christ, and reading it protects the reader spiritually.  I like this.  BTW, The Book of Mormon was translated mostly in the State of Pennsylvania-- which is nicknamed, by curious coincidence, the Keystone State.

But truly I think the keystone function of the Book of Mormon is that it ties together the JS story, the angel Moroni, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of Joseph's authority and angelic encounters. Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon. It’s a link in the restoration narrative. At least that's how I see it and JS's comment

[Vort]

As you note, it's incorrect to suppose that the keystone is somehow the "most important" stone. Take any stone away, not just the keystone, and the arch crumbles. But the keystone completes the arch. Moreover, it's the piece that, in a sense, holds the others together, The other stones exist to span a length; the stones forming the sides of the arch provide height, and the stones in the archway add breadth. The keystone adds no height and little width to the arch; it exists mostly to provide the compensating forces that allow the arch to stand.

Not sure how the Book of Mormon fits into this metaphor. I disagree with the idea that the Book of Mormon contains "little essential doctrine"; I see it as rather doctrinally dense. But I like your idea about the keystone being decorative and giving individual character to the arch, providing the arch with the image of the Savior while also completing the continuity of the structure. Maybe there's something to that.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

But truly I think the keystone function of the Book of Mormon is that it ties together the JS story, the angel Moroni, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of Joseph's authority and angelic encounters. Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon. It’s a link in the restoration narrative. At least that's how I see it and JS's comment

I think this statement is correct except the "little essential doctrine" part. But it more than merely ties these things together. It is the ordained means whereby we know the truth of these things.

[clbent04]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure how the Book of Mormon fits into this metaphor. I disagree with the idea that the Book of Mormon contains "little essential doctrine"; I see it as rather doctrinally dense. 

 

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think this statement is correct except the "little essential doctrine" part. But it more than merely ties these things together. It is the ordained means whereby we know the truth of these things.

To clarify, in regards to uniquely containing the fullness of gospel, the Book of Mormon contains little essential doctrine. Doctrinally dense? Yes. But it contains little essential doctrine that we don't already have available elsewhere

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

the Book of Mormon contains little essential doctrine

I don't think so.

8 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

it contains little essential doctrine that we don't already have available elsewhere

The same could be said of almost all "doctrine". As soon as someone says something in General Conference it's "available elsewhere". That doesn't mean the General Conference talk is the primary source of the idea shared. In many cases the Book of Mormon is our primary source of understanding. And as far as the same being in the Bible first, well obviously the Book of Mormon made many doctrines plain to understand that had been less clear in the Bible.

Of course the Book of Mormon does not stand doctrinally alone. But I still think you are downplaying its significance. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[clbent04]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The same could be said of almost all "doctrine". As soon as someone says something in General Conference it's "available elsewhere". That doesn't mean the General Conference talk is the primary source of the idea shared. In many cases the Book of Mormon is our primary source of understanding. And as far as the same being in the Bible first, well obviously the Book of Mormon made many doctrines plain to understand that had been less clear in the Bible.

Of course the Book of Mormon does not stand doctrinally alone. But I still think you are downplaying its significance. 

I'm not downplaying it's significance. I'm focusing on where the emphasis of it's significance should be placed. Just ask yourself what would we have if we didn't have the Book of Mormon. Would our belief system cease to exist?  Would we no longer have a path to follow?  Would the Plan of Salvation be indiscernible?

We do gain clarity from the Book of Mormon, but we gain little essential doctrine from what we already have.

If tomorrow President Nelson traveled to Africa and was divinely directed to unearth another testament of Jesus Christ parallel to that of the Bible and Book of Mormon, would that change the essential doctrine of our religion or simply reinforce it?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Would our belief system cease to exist [never had existed in the first place]?

Yes.

6 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Would we no longer have a path to follow?

We would not. Because there would have been no restoration, no tool for conversion, no clarity. We would all be floundering in the continuing Great Apostasy.

7 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Would the Plan of Salvation be indiscernible?

Almost certainly.

9 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

We do gain clarity from the Book of Mormon, but we gain little essential doctrine from what we already have.

I really don't understand how you cannot see that the essential doctrine that we already have is because of the Book of Mormon even if it now exists independently.

7 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

If tomorrow President Nelson traveled to Africa and was divinely directed to unearth another testament of Jesus Christ parallel to that of the Bible and Book of Mormon, would that change the essential doctrine of our religion or simply reinforce it?

This is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Now if the gospel hadn't been restored already...then perhaps. But it has. And it was. And the Book of Mormon was key to that restoration. KEY!

[clbent04]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And the Book of Mormon was key to that restoration. KEY!

Agreed, as stated in the OP. But not key to introducing a lot of essential doctrine that the Bible already contained.

2 hours ago, clbent04 said:

But truly I think the keystone function of the Book of Mormon is that it ties together the JS story, the angel Moroni, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of Joseph's authority and angelic encounters. Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon. It’s a link in the restoration narrative. At least that's how I see it and JS's comment

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by clbent04

[Guest]

3 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I've made a study of arches.  Not studied the subject like a construction engineer, but just like a dilettante.  Turns out, just as I suspected, construction-wise, or engineering-wise, the keystone is NOT the most important stone in the arch.  Take away ANY stone in the arch and it will collapse just as surely and just as quickly as if the keystone had been removed.  But the mythology of the keystone illustrates a point, even if the physics doesn't support it. 

I'll add some additional understanding of arches.

On the one hand, Joseph was not an engineer or physicist.  He was a farmer.  He knew arches as a farmer and laborer would understand them.  So, the meaning of his statement needs to be analyzed from that angle first.

On the other hand, I find it a challenge to consider the physics of the arch and see if there is a real honest-to-goodness metaphor there.

The primary characteristics of the arch's structural properties are:

• Stone arches in days of old (which is what we're talking about) are mostly based on the effects of gravity on the ability of the stones to stay together.  Steel or wood bridges have slightly (but only slightly) different mechanisms of efficiency over a beam bridge.  Most commonly, they have a way of re-directing stress so that loads are transferred through compression forces rather than beam (bending) forces.  Compression strength along a fully braced member like an arch can be many orders of magnitude higher than a similar beam bridge that will transfer forces via bending.
• Not all stones in the arch are equal.  Remember we're not talking about a free-standing arches like the Chicago Arch*.  We're talking about bridges or walkways or entrances of larger structures.  The keystone does serve a special purpose.  Many times, the other stones were not trapezoidal. Or they were minimally trapezoidal.  The keystone was specifically trapezoidal and often exaggeratedly so.  And it was often larger than the other stones.  These two characteristics (size and shape)meant that if some other stone cracked, then the arch might maintain structural integrity. It would be weaker, certainly.  And it would need repair because it would be out of proper geometry.  But if the keystone itself crumbled, bye-bye arch.
• Being in the center of the arch, it has a special load effect. Gravity pulls in only one direction.  EVEN IF the other stones were the same size and the same shape (which can certainly be done) all the other stones in the arch will have loads that are oblique to the joints between stones.  That obliqueness causes gravitational forces to resolve into their vector components very differently than in the keystone.  The keystone will have the most acute angle from load to joint surface.  That means the shear forces are most likely to cause the arch to fail at this point than others.  Other stones' shear forces will resolve into compression forces.

So, what does this mean for the overall structure?

Even if the keystone fails and the arch falls, the springers will most likely be unaffected.  It is all the other stones that will fall apart.  The springers are supported by the foundations of the overall structure.  And the foundations are the Prophets and Apostles, with Jesus Christ, Himself as the chief cornerstone.

The Book of Mormon is that stone which stands out as the large, strong, unusual stone among all others.  It does things that all the other stones don't do.  And consider... what are the other stones? We usually say the old mantra

Quote

If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet.  If he was a prophet, then the Church restored through him is also true.

Well, that is a nice logical chain.  And I believe it to be true.  But what does that have to do with the function of a keystone?  If prophets and apostles are the foundation, then why is the credibility of the prophet dependent upon something above it?  I had thought that with the introduction of the "D&C is the capstone" analogy that we must be talking about the same structure.

• Revelation is the rock upon which we build.
• Prophets and apostles are the foundation, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone.
• The springers are covenants, priesthood, ordinances, etc.  It is these items which set us apart from other faiths. They form the wall of delineation of what is within the structure and what is without.
• The other stones in the arch are all other doctrines/scriptures/words of the prophets.
• Finally, the keystone holds other doctrines together.  The BoM is not only a guidebook for life.  It is the guidebook for doctrine.  The BoM is supposed to become our personal urim and thummim. As such, all other doctrines become clear.  And we can know of their surety by using the BoM as a urim and thummim.  While the Bible is certainly a wonderful and inspired book, from which we may learn many doctrines and feel the Spirit, it is not a urim and thummim.  It does not inspire us to understand all other doctrines.  The BoM does.  This is why we can understand the truths in the Bible.  But those who only have the Bible cannot understand the truths in the BoM.

That's my opinion anyway.

 

*Free-standing arches behave differently and have advantages over beam bridges due to other properties.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Guest

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I've long had my doubts concerning the usual interpretation of Joseph's observation, The Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion-- meaning, the keystone is the most important stone in the arch; take it away, and the whole arch crumbles.  What would happen if the BOM was taken away? Would we no longer have the fullness of the gospel? Would everything crumble? No, we would still have the Bible. The Bible also contains the fullness of the gospel in and of itself. We would still have the Priesthood, prophets, apostles, revelation....

I've made a study of arches.  Not studied the subject like a construction engineer, but just like a dilettante.  Turns out, just as I suspected, construction-wise, or engineering-wise, the keystone is NOT the most important stone in the arch.  Take away ANY stone in the arch and it will collapse just as surely and just as quickly as if the keystone had been removed.  But the mythology of the keystone illustrates a point, even if the physics doesn't support it. 

Nevertheless, I've come up with a novel interpretation-- perhaps not exactly what Joseph intended, but who knows.  The Roman arch-- or actually the Etruscan arch, as the Romans got the arch (and almost everything else quintessentially Roman) from the Etruscans-- as I say, the keystone in the Etruscan arch was usually decorated with a statue of the face of the city's protective god, to ward off evil, plague, famine etc and protect from attack.  Many Roman keystones were similarly adorned-- a practice extending right up into the Middle Ages and occasionally into the present. 

This is a novel way of thinking about Joseph's observation.  The Book of Mormon is imprinted with the face of Christ, and reading it protects the reader spiritually.  I like this.  BTW, The Book of Mormon was translated mostly in the State of Pennsylvania-- which is nicknamed, by curious coincidence, the Keystone State.

But truly I think the keystone function of the Book of Mormon is that it ties together the JS story, the angel Moroni, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of Joseph's authority and angelic encounters. Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon. It’s a link in the restoration narrative. At least that's how I see it and JS's comment

Well, I truly like the idea/concept you present in addition to what has already been taught through our prophets, particularly President Benson regarding the Book of Mormon as the Keystone of our religion. One does not have an "arch" though without the keystone which holds the pieces together, and if you loose that keystone, well the arch falls, crumbles to the earth.

Quote

There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony. (President Benson)

What would happen if the BOM was taken away?

If we take the BOM away then our religion, our witness of Christ, and our doctrine would crumble and fall away. The Bible alone has already proven to not be sufficient. If the Bible alone would have been sufficient there wouldn't have been a need for the Book of Mormon to confound false doctrine. Let's review what President Benson has said regarding the thought should the Book of Mormon be taken away or proven false:

Quote

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. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.

 

Quote

If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?”

 

Quote

 

Over ten years ago I made the following statement regarding the Book of Mormon:

“Do eternal consequences rest upon our response to this book? Yes, either to our blessing or our condemnation.

“Every Latter-day Saint should make the study of this book a lifetime pursuit. Otherwise he is placing his soul in jeopardy and neglecting that which could give spiritual and intellectual unity to his whole life. There is a difference between a convert who is built on the rock of Christ through the Book of Mormon and stays hold of that iron rod, and one who is not” (Ensign, May 1975, p. 65).

 

The BOM provides clarity to, and that "little" essential doctrine impacts "greatly" our lives. Without such, we would not draw closer to God as we have been able to. That "little" essential doctrine is essential to our becoming like Christ.

Nowhere else will you find the clarity doctrine between mercy and justice. Nowhere else will you find the clarity of doctrine between faith and hope. Nowhere else will you find the clarify of doctrine regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ. Nowhere else will you find the clarity of works, mercy, and grace. Nowhere else will you find the clarity of denying oneself of all ungodliness in order to come unto Christ. Nowhere else will you find the clarity of being called and being chosen. Nowhere else will you find the clarity of Isaiah within the words of Nephi and his brother Jacob. Nowhere else will you find the clarify of the Olive Allegory and the gathering, scattering, gathering, and scattering of the House of Israel in connection with the mercy, grace, and charity of Christ.

Take away or remove the Book of Mormon and we have lost much, from the "little" doctrine specified.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Anddenex

[Jane_Doe]

Does the Book of Mormon go on at length about some super advance doctrine found no where else?  No.  Rather it hammers home on the basic: come unto Christ for salvation.  And that message is indeed the keystone of our faith, upon which everything else stands.  Yes, it is found other places too, but no where as simply and directly as the Book of Mormon.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'll add some additional understanding of arches.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Odd. I hear that when @Carborendum talks about anything. Not just engineering. 

[clbent04]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Does the Book of Mormon go on at length about some super advance doctrine found no where else?  No.  Rather it hammers home on the basic: come unto Christ for salvation. 

Yes, agreed. That’s exactly what I’m trying to get at. The Book of Mormon hits on the plain and simple truths we know to be essential to salvation: Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. Are these ideas solely contained in the Book of Mormon? No. But they are expounded upon by additional examples, stories, and sermons. 

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Yes, agreed. That’s exactly what I’m trying to get at. The Book of Mormon hits on the plain and simple truths we know to be essential to salvation: Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end. Are these ideas solely contained in the Book of Mormon? No. But they are expounded upon by additional examples, stories, and sermons. 

I'm a little confused then: why then the doubts as the to keystone quote?

[clbent04]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm a little confused then: why then the doubts as the to keystone quote?

I never was questioning the importance of the Book of Mormon. I was only pointing out it doesn’t uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel 

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I never was questioning the importance of the Book of Mormon. I was only pointing out it doesn’t uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel 

How are you defining the phrase "fullness of the Gospel"? 

For me, "fullness of the Gospel" isn't getting to know every detail of everything (that's just impossible right now), but the central core of the Good News (aka the Gospel): Christ's birth, atonement, and resurrection.  And the Book of Mormon does that in spades.

[clbent04]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How are you defining the phrase "fullness of the Gospel"? 

I’m not really leaping to conclusions here saying the Book of Mormon does not uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel unless you’re opposed to the first paragraph of the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

Edited November 21, 2018 by clbent04

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I’m not really leaping to conclusions here saying the Book of Mormon does not uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel unless you’re opposed to the first paragraph of the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

I think we're having a miscommunicaiton here.

I don't doubt the Book of Mormon's importance or it's role as keystone, or the Bible's importance in also teaching the Gospel.  From what I gathered, neither do you.  So... I'm a little confused on what we're supposed to be talking about here.

[clbent04]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I think we're having a miscommunicaiton here.

I don't doubt the Book of Mormon's importance or it's role as keystone, or the Bible's importance in also teaching the Gospel.  From what I gathered, neither do you.  So... I'm a little confused on what we're supposed to be talking about here.

I was just trying to help you understand where I was coming from since you asked, and it looks like we agree 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Odd. I hear that when @Carborendum talks about anything. Not just engineering. 

What I hear when @zil is talking:.

blah blah blah FOUNTAIN PENS blah blah blah. BLUE blah blah blah GREEN blah blah blah.

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

...BLUE ... GREEN...

I would never say such a mundane thing!  I would say things like "Colorverse Extra Dimension" and "Sailor Tokiwa-Matsu"!

 

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

I would never say such a mundane thing!  I would say things like "Colorverse Extra Dimension" and "Sailor Tokiwa-Matsu"!

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah BLUE blah blah blah blah blah blah GREEN!

 

 

[person0]

4 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Just ask yourself what would we have if we didn't have the Book of Mormon. Would our belief system cease to exist?  Would we no longer have a path to follow?  Would the Plan of Salvation be indiscernible?

I would encourage you to ask an alternative question:  If all scriptural and religious texts of any kind and in any format suddenly vanished, how many of the world's religions would continue to exist?  I would imagine that only those who claim a direct prophetic link would even have a chance.  There would perhaps be groups who would come together to try and reconstruct the bible from the memories of various individuals, but there would be contention and dissension among them.  Those that falsely or inaccurately claim prophetic authority would survive for a short period, but would likely fizzle.  I believe, however, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would continue and thrive, because we would have no need to re-create anything, but the prophets instead would simply receive revelation as it applies to us now, and we would simply press forward.

[clbent04]

9 minutes ago, person0 said:

I would encourage you to ask an alternative question:  If all scriptural and religious texts of any kind and in any format suddenly vanished, how many of the world's religions would continue to exist?  I would imagine that only those who claim a direct prophetic link would even have a chance.  There would perhaps be groups who would come together to try and reconstruct the bible from the memories of various individuals, but there would be contention and dissension among them.  Those that falsely or inaccurately claim prophetic authority would survive for a short period, but would likely fizzle.  I believe, however, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would continue and thrive, because we would have no need to re-create anything, but the prophets instead would simply receive revelation as it applies to us now, and we would simply press forward.

Bingo