Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Physics Guy »

Concerning the selfish motives that I attribute to Smith, I acknowledge that in his office as Prophet he did plenty of the same kind of work that I do myself, writing and teaching. If he enjoyed the privilege of taking days off whenever he chose, that's also a privilege shared by plenty of driven executives—and even to some extent by professors, who can and should sometimes decide to spend a day on our favourite long-term project instead of in grading. I'm pretty sure, though, that a farm labourer in 1830 would have agreed with Dire Straits' appliance delivery guys: that ain't workin'.

Does the Book of Mormon have a Restorationist theme? I admit that I've never read it all thoroughly, but I've mostly been struck by a Conservationist theme, of ancient ways and ancient records being faithfully maintained, to the point that even the advent of the resurrected Christ in city-smiting power is presented as the immediately understood fulfilment of a long-known prophecy.

The Book of Mormon certainly does have an Exodus theme, and it's easy to see how this supported the post-Smith migration to Utah; but by then the Restoration itself seems to have been established already. If the Book of Mormon emphasised one or more previous Restorations, then I could see it as a naturally supportive Scripture for Smith's final Restoration. Did I overlook a lot of big scenes about restoration-y stuff in the Book of Mormon?

I feel a certain disconnect between Smith's role as miraculous translator of the Book of Mormon and his role as Prophet of the Restoration. The two offices don't seem closely related except in having been held by one person in rapid succession. Why did Tesla need PayPal? What do electric cars have to do with online payments? PayPal gave Musk credibility and capital with which he could have done many things, and electric cars are just the thing that he picked. It feels as though the Book of Mormon may just have been Joseph Smith's PayPal, and the Restoration just the Tesla he picked to do next with the resources he'd gained.

Smith's follow-up was arguably a more logical next move than Musk's was, inasmuch as the Book of Mormon certainly has a lot about religious doctrine and theocratic leadership. It just doesn't seem to have many of the specifically Mormon doctrines and customs that Smith went on to establish. It sounds as though LDS doctrine itself has been content to leave the Book of Mormon as a sort of introductory drum roll that simply put a spiritual spotlight on Joseph Smith and got people's attention for the new things that he would go on to reveal. Is that it?
I was a teenager before it was cool.
tagriffy
Deacon
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:13 am
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by tagriffy »

Physics Guy wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:29 am

I feel a certain disconnect between Smith's role as miraculous translator of the Book of Mormon and his role as Prophet of the Restoration. The two offices don't seem closely related except in having been held by one person in rapid succession. Why did Tesla need PayPal? What do electric cars have to do with online payments? PayPal gave Musk credibility and capital with which he could have done many things, and electric cars are just the thing that he picked. It feels as though the Book of Mormon may just have been Joseph Smith's PayPal, and the Restoration just the Tesla he picked to do next with the resources he'd gained.

Smith's follow-up was arguably a more logical next move than Musk's was, inasmuch as the Book of Mormon certainly has a lot about religious doctrine and theocratic leadership. It just doesn't seem to have many of the specifically Mormon doctrines and customs that Smith went on to establish. It sounds as though LDS doctrine itself has been content to leave the Book of Mormon as a sort of introductory drum roll that simply put a spiritual spotlight on Joseph Smith and got people's attention for the new things that he would go on to reveal. Is that it?
I think there is much to be said for this line of thought. I have often thought that the Book of Mormon was as much for Joseph's benefit as it was for the book's stated purposes. It put him on the track of finding his own prophetic voice. Modern prophecy--speaking "thus saith the Lord"--while not unheard of, was not taken as seriously as quoting the Bible, i.e., the ancient authority on theological matters. Possibly in Joseph's mind, if it wasn't ancient, it wasn't authoritative. He needed an "ancient" resource to base religious innovation. While it is true that the Book of Mormon doesn't have that much that is innovative, there is still enough there that he could start moving in a new direction in contrast with the existing Christian sects. He may never have fully overcome the need to have ancient support for his ideas. The Book of Abraham reflects the doctrinal innovations Joseph was already introducing, yet this "ancient" document gave Joseph's teachings an authority that they might not have otherwise had.
Timothy A. Griffy
http://tagriffy.blogspot.com

Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

American conservatives are a paradox (if you want to be polite) or soulless expedient cynics (if you want to be accurate).--TheCriticalMind
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by dastardly stem »

It does seem to be true that in Joseph's mind due to cultural influence religion had to have an ancient element. HIs later projects of retranslating the Bible, or copying commentaries as some conceive it, and the Book of Abraham only demonstrate this mindset more. Religion wasn't correct in his day because it was incomplete. There were more ancient teachings out there. And there were more people interacting with Jesus back in the day. He wasn't some poor guy from a poor family in far flung Galilee. He was God who floated from people to people trying to save a few. I guess I'm not quite seeing the disconnect you're describing. It very well could be he had no intention of doing much more, as a youth, then creating a story of Jesus followers in the Americas. But he seems awfully preachy to think that's all he wanted. Stories floating around his environment suggesting Native Americans were Israelites made it easy for him to conceive of a Jesus story that would embolden his prophetic inclinations.

Of course, putting it that way sounds like fate or genius level strategy. I doubt he had much explicit pretensions when he first conceived of a Book of Mormon story. And if he stole it from others, as some allege, then it hardly seems incredible at all. It sounds like his older brother Alvin and his dad had plenty of influence in getting him to think Christianity needed fixing. The Book of Mormon was used to show why that was--Jesus had more to say than what's found in the Bible.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Kishkumen »

Physics Guy wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:29 am
Concerning the selfish motives that I attribute to Smith, I acknowledge that in his office as Prophet he did plenty of the same kind of work that I do myself, writing and teaching. If he enjoyed the privilege of taking days off whenever he chose, that's also a privilege shared by plenty of driven executives—and even to some extent by professors, who can and should sometimes decide to spend a day on our favourite long-term project instead of in grading. I'm pretty sure, though, that a farm labourer in 1830 would have agreed with Dire Straits' appliance delivery guys: that ain't workin'.
Meh. It seems to me that you don't really know what kind of work went into Joseph Smith's ministry. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that being the Prophet is a never ending performance that would really tax a person. Being a professor is only a fraction of that effort, in my opinion. I say that as a professor. People mistake privilege for leisure. Just because you have a lot of privilege does not mean you are spending your days in king-sized bed eating chocolates and having sex. The idea of labor is very complicated. Much of it has more to do with status than it does effort. Or kinds of effort are attached to different levels of status.
Does the Book of Mormon have a Restorationist theme? I admit that I've never read it all thoroughly, but I've mostly been struck by a Conservationist theme, of ancient ways and ancient records being faithfully maintained, to the point that even the advent of the resurrected Christ in city-smiting power is presented as the immediately understood fulfilment of a long-known prophecy.
In the context of the times, the narratives that the Book of Mormon was playing out, and the prophecies it was revealing, recovering, or fulfilling, were lost or unrealized. It is fundamentally a restorationist project in those ways.
I feel a certain disconnect between Smith's role as miraculous translator of the Book of Mormon and his role as Prophet of the Restoration. The two offices don't seem closely related except in having been held by one person in rapid succession. Why did Tesla need PayPal? What do electric cars have to do with online payments? PayPal gave Musk credibility and capital with which he could have done many things, and electric cars are just the thing that he picked. It feels as though the Book of Mormon may just have been Joseph Smith's PayPal, and the Restoration just the Tesla he picked to do next with the resources he'd gained.

Smith's follow-up was arguably a more logical next move than Musk's was, inasmuch as the Book of Mormon certainly has a lot about religious doctrine and theocratic leadership. It just doesn't seem to have many of the specifically Mormon doctrines and customs that Smith went on to establish. It sounds as though LDS doctrine itself has been content to leave the Book of Mormon as a sort of introductory drum roll that simply put a spiritual spotlight on Joseph Smith and got people's attention for the new things that he would go on to reveal. Is that it?
Hmmm. I think traditional LDS historiography is as much to blame for this perception as anything. This is not to say that Mormonism left behind the questions the Book of Mormon was asking and answering over time. But it took a long time to leave some of these things behind. If Mormonism is imagined to have dropped the Book of Mormon so soon, then what of all the lingering Lamanite/Native American issues. That is too easy to overlook, but it remained very important for LDS Mormons long after Joseph Smith was assassinated.

And that is just one of many themes that is later developed in the Restoration. Another is the temple. Yes, the temple in the Book of Mormon is not everything it will be in Nauvoo and later, but the truth of the matter is that the temple was a principal priority of Smith before 1830, and it was something that required a Restoration to bring back. The Temple had been gone since its destruction by Titus, and Joseph Smith was bringing it back. The Book of Mormon laid the groundwork. Sources outside of the Book of Mormon show, before 1830, that it was his intention that the temple institution in the Book of Mormon would become an important concern in this movement outside of the Book of Mormon in the real world.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Book of Mormon is followed by a big disconnect that leaves the book essentially orphaned, more important to Joseph Smith in its production than in its existence as part of the Restoration. Rather, the Book of Mormon is the seed that the Restoration brings to fruition in sometimes unforeseen ways. Nevertheless, those seeds are visible in the book and in the events and statements surrounding Joseph Smith in the time when the book was being translated. Seriously, the Book of Mormon fits. It fits what came before it. It fits what came after it. It is an essential part of the entire history of Mormonism.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Analytics »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:04 pm
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Book of Mormon is followed by a big disconnect that leaves the book essentially orphaned, more important to Joseph Smith in its production than in its existence as part of the Restoration. Rather, the Book of Mormon is the seed that the Restoration brings to fruition in sometimes unforeseen ways. Nevertheless, those seeds are visible in the book and in the events and statements surrounding Joseph Smith in the time when the book was being translated. Seriously, the Book of Mormon fits. It fits what came before it. It fits what came after it. It is an essential part of the entire history of Mormonism.
The most important function of the Book of Mormon in the modern church is that its miraculous existence proves Joseph Smith was a real prophet, which proves that the Church is "true."

Yes, Mormons read it and yes, it contains the fundamental general Christian concepts that Mormonism teaches. Yes, the ideas that Joseph Smith had in the 1830's and 1840's sometimes have some precedence in his ideas in the 1820's. But apart from doctrines such as creation, fall, atonement, faith, baptism, etc., the author of the Book of Mormon wasn't anticipating a Church with temple recommends, bishop interviews, temple marriage being required to make it to the highest level of heaven, multiple offices of multiple priesthoods, and in general the absolute necessity of God having an institution that is uniquely authorized to perform the ordinances that are required for salvation.

For example, the Book of Mormon doesn't have an actual "church" until 450 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. When this Church was started, an angel didn't appear to Alma and confer upon him the authority to restore the one-and-only true church and thereafter perform God-recognized baptisms. Rather, Alma simply baptized himself. Yes, the concept of "authority" is in the Book of Mormon, but it comes directly from God, not from a church organization that somehow holds the "keys" of these things. From my seat, the shift between power and Authority coming directly from God to power and authority coming through a priesthood hierarchy that controls the various keys of salvation is an unassailable gulf between what the Book of Mormon teaches and how the Church has operated since 1838.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Kishkumen »

Analytics wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:06 pm
The most important function of the Book of Mormon in the modern church is that its miraculous existence proves Joseph Smith was a real prophet, which proves that the Church is "true."

Yes, Mormons read it and yes, it contains the fundamental general Christian concepts that Mormonism teaches. Yes, the ideas that Joseph Smith had in the 1830's and 1840's sometimes have some precedence in his ideas in the 1820's. But apart from doctrines such as creation, fall, atonement, faith, baptism, etc., the author of the Book of Mormon wasn't anticipating a Church with temple recommends, bishop interviews, temple marriage being required to make it to the highest level of heaven, multiple offices of multiple priesthoods, and in general the absolute necessity of God having an institution that is uniquely authorized to perform the ordinances that are required for salvation.

For example, the Book of Mormon doesn't have an actual "church" until 450 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. When this Church was started, an angel didn't appear to Alma and confer upon him the authority to restore the one-and-only true church and thereafter perform God-recognized baptisms. Rather, Alma simply baptized himself. Yes, the concept of "authority" is in the Book of Mormon, but it comes directly from God, not from a church organization that somehow holds the "keys" of these things. From my seat, the shift between power and Authority coming directly from God to power and authority coming through a priesthood hierarchy that controls the various keys of salvation is an unassailable gulf between what the Book of Mormon teaches and how the Church has operated since 1838.
I don't see the point of this "rebuttal." It is absolutely absurd to posit that every detail of every practice in Mormonism must be contained in the Book of Mormon in order to see the logic of the Book's place and essential role in the origins and evolution of the faith. That would be like saying the shrew was unnecessary to the evolution of Homo sapiens because it did not walk upright and have opposable thumbs.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Analytics »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:13 pm
I don't see the point of this "rebuttal." It is absolutely absurd to posit that every detail of every practice in Mormonism must be contained in the Book of Mormon in order to see the logic of the Book's place and essential role in the origins and evolution of the faith. That would be like saying the shrew was unnecessary to the evolution of Homo sapiens because it did not walk upright and have opposable thumbs.
Did the Book of Mormon play an essential role in the origin of the faith? Definitely. In its evolution? Yes, but less so. To refresh, Physics Guy said:
Physics Guy wrote:I've gotten the idea that the Restoration through Joseph Smith, of priesthood and ordinances and church structure, is actually a much bigger deal in Mormonism than the Book of Mormon, which says little if anything about those major Mormon concepts and practices. Even if reading and re-reading the Book of Mormon is also a big part of Mormon practice, the Restoration and the Book of Mormon seem to be pretty loosely connected to each other.
I think his observation here is correct and insightful. I'm not saying the Church didn't evolve the way that it did. I'm saying that if somebody were to read the Book of Mormon in an unbiased way, they'd be inclined to say the modern Mormon Church evolved out of the religion of the Book of Mormon in basically the same way that the religion of the Zoramites evolved out of the religion of the Nephites.

For reference on that analogy:
The Zoramites are identified as an apostate sect from the true Church of God. The doctrines and practices of the Zoramites are described by Alma as follows:
  • The worship of idols (Alma 31:1).
  • The rejection of the Law of Moses (Alma 31:9).
  • The rejection of church sacraments and daily prayer (Alma 31:10).
  • The building of Synagogues for worship once a week on the day of the Lord (Alma 31:12).
  • The use of a raised platform for individuals to offer public prayer on the day of the Lord (Alma 31:13, Alma 38:13).
  • The rejection of Christ (Alma 31:17, Alma 31:29).
  • The belief that the Zoramites are the chosen people of God (Alma 31:18).
  • Worship may occur only in a synagogue, and the poor are not allowed to enter (Alma 32:5, Alma 32:9).
  • The church is combined with the state and has rulers, priests, and teachers (Alma 35:5).
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Kishkumen »

Yes, well, I don’t agree. Pointing out a list of Zoramite practices and teachings does not help all that much. Which of those characteristics made them apostate? All of them? Are they an inversion of everything a non-apostate organization should be? I doubt it. I will have to think about this more because your list gives me too little to go on, but I think you are oversimplifying things here quite a bit.

Look, the president of the LDS Church and all the apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators. The seer part comes directly from Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone. While it is certainly the case that much was added to Mormonism over time, the Book of Mormon and the process of its production are absolutely necessary parts of the Restoration. It could not look anything like it does without the Book of Mormon. To say it could is to propose an absurd non-starter of a contra-factual history.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Physics Guy »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:13 am
Look, the president of the LDS Church and all the apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators. The seer part comes directly from Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone.
Actually, I've always wondered about the "seer" title, because it just seems redundant. I mean, I can accept "revelator" as a slight narrowing of the more general term "prophet", for the sake of emphasis, but I don't know of anything that any Mormon prophet after Smith himself has ever done for which "seeing" would be a more precise label than either "prophecy" or "revelation". Am I just unaware of a lot of post-Smith first-presidential seeing, as distinct from revelation or prophecy, that is really important to the whole Restoration?

Because the "seer" title thus seems empty to me, it strikes me less as an indication that Smith's scrying of the Book of Mormon is an important part of the Restoration, and more an indication of the opposite, that the only connections are in things like this empty title. The idea that there should be a connection between the Book of Mormon and the Restoration may be a real part of Mormonism, but is there really a connection?

If I press this point, it's not because I'm sure I know Mormonism better than all the actual current or former Mormons on this board. I just always assumed that Mormonism was mainly based on the Book of Mormon, because I always heard the faith named as "Mormon-ism", after all. Okay, I've since learned that there's more to Mormonism than just the Book itself. I may still not have learned much more than that, but in what I have learned, I'm suddenly noticing that I don't see much connection between the Book of Mormon and all the stuff like "keys" being restored by resurrected Biblical figures in the 1830s, endowments and sealings, and a whole lot of Presidencies. So I'm asking what the connection is supposed to be, in Mormon teaching.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

Post by Dr Exiled »

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:19 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:13 am
Look, the president of the LDS Church and all the apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators. The seer part comes directly from Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone.
Actually, I've always wondered about the "seer" title, because it just seems redundant. I mean, I can accept "revelator" as a slight narrowing of the more general term "prophet", for the sake of emphasis, but I don't know of anything that any Mormon prophet after Smith himself has ever done for which "seeing" would be a more precise label than either "prophecy" or "revelation". Am I just unaware of a lot of post-Smith first-presidential seeing, as distinct from revelation or prophecy, that is really important to the whole Restoration?

Because the "seer" title thus seems empty to me, it strikes me less as an indication that Smith's scrying of the Book of Mormon is an important part of the Restoration, and more an indication of the opposite, that the only connections are in things like this empty title. The idea that there should be a connection between the Book of Mormon and the Restoration may be a real part of Mormonism, but is there really a connection?

If I press this point, it's not because I'm sure I know Mormonism better than all the actual current or former Mormons on this board. I just always assumed that Mormonism was mainly based on the Book of Mormon, because I always heard the faith named as "Mormon-ism", after all. Okay, I've since learned that there's more to Mormonism than just the Book itself. I may still not have learned much more than that, but in what I have learned, I'm suddenly noticing that I don't see much connection between the Book of Mormon and all the stuff like "keys" being restored by resurrected Biblical figures in the 1830s, endowments and sealings, and a whole lot of Presidencies. So I'm asking what the connection is supposed to be, in Mormon teaching.
I think the "seer" claim the leadership makes comes from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone. In Mosiah Chapter 8, the story recounts finding records from another ancient people and how a "seer" is amazing, conveniently just like Joseph Smith was amazing with his seer stone, not the criminal the people in upstate NY claimed but amazing and a prophet:
13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can atranslate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called binterpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called cseer.

14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.

15 And the king said that a aseer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.


To me, the Book of Mormon was important as a start for the supposed restoration Joseph Smith started. It contained the answers to many of the religious questions of the time and definitely acted as a basis or foundation for further moves Joseph Smith did. However, I think he even moved away from it as time went on and continued his focus on the Bible and how his innovations proved the Bible true. In the end, he buried the original Book of Mormon manuscript under the Nauvoo temple cornerstone, hardly an act of someone that revered the book.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Post Reply