Why did the Restoration need the Book of Mormon?

[Kishkumen]

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.

Thanks for these thoughtful comments and questions, PG. So, I think there are at least two separate questions here, and it is easy to get into the weeds when we fail to recognize that. The first is this: Which of Joseph Smith's founding contributions are structurally necessary in the operations and teachings of the LDS Church today? The second is this: What did the Restoration mean at various points in Mormon history?

I have been more interested in the latter of the two questions, but they are related.

Let's take seer. Yes, it is hard to see how seer is important in the realm of question #1. Seer looks like an empty title. President Nelson is, to most everyone's knowledge and perhaps' everyone's, not consulting a seer stone to make decisions about the running of the LDS Church. Even if he were, it would not mean much when almost no one seems to know that he is. Presumably, his successor could be left with no knowledge that he was supposed to follow Nelson in that practice.

On the other hand, Mormons have over the centuries continued to expect that the sealed portion of the plates would at some point be translated. The LDS canon is open, and Joseph Smith claimed not to have translated certain plates that were sealed. Periodically, schismatic individuals and groups will claim to have translated the Sealed Portion, and I have no doubt that further "translations" will continue to appear. What this shows is that Mormon teachings continue to nourish the expectation that the powers of the seer will be employed to translate more scripture. Much like the Second Coming, however, it is a hope that is continually deferred.

Another aspect of the Book of Mormon that is an integral part of LDS teachings and practices is the book's role in the Gathering of Israel. Little children are expected, even today, to memorize the Articles of Faith, which include the following passage:

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

This gathering includes the Lamanites, to whom the Book of Mormon is directed for this very purpose, as we see in the original title page of the book:

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.

Over time, emphasis on the Lamanites has dwindled for various reasons, and so, too, has emphasis on the Gathering of Israel, but as long as children are asked to memorize the Articles of Faith and read the Book of Mormon, the idea that missionary work is, in no small part, about gathering together Israel in order to prepare for the Second Coming of Christ will endure. Kids are raised to go on missions. They are not all completely unaware of what they are meant to be doing out there.

So I continue to argue that, despite changes that alter the LDS Church's emphasis, the Book of Mormon remains integral to the overall message and aims of the organization.

[Physics Guy]

So Mormonism sees the ongoing re-transmission of lost volumes of Scripture—their restoration, in fact—as an important feature of the general Restoration. When we say it like that, I have to admit that it clearly makes sense. If we're having a Restoration, in a religious tradition that is quite into Scripture, then restoring lost Scriptures is something one should expect.

The Book of Mormon that was restored through Smith, with his seeing stone, was simply the first product of this ongoing enterprise; the Book is itself actually a restored compilation of several lost ancient scriptures. The Books of Moses and Abraham were further instalments. The fact that no more further instalments have so far appeared, in nearly two hundred years, may be worrying, but surely no more worrying than the failure of Christ to return after two thousand years—and even ancient liturgical churches continue to recite the expectation of Christ's return every week in their Creeds.

The return of Christ may be emphasised less in modern Catholicism than it is in Pre-Tribulationist Southern Baptist congregations, but the modern Catholic Church still officially endorses the theory that Christ will someday return. In a similar way, the restoration of additional lost Scriptures may not be a front-burner pot that modern Mormons eagerly watch, but ongoing restoration of lost Scripture is still officially on the books in Mormon teaching.

That's a good answer to my question. It's not that the Restoration needed the Book of Mormon to make the Restoration happen, but that the general Restoration was bound to include, as an important feature, the restoration of lost Scriptures, and the Book of Mormon was the kick-off example of this.

I'd be content to call this thread closed.

[Kishkumen]

So Mormonism sees the ongoing re-transmission of lost volumes of Scripture—their restoration, in fact—as an important feature of the general Restoration. When we say it like that, I have to admit that it clearly makes sense. If we're having a Restoration, in a religious tradition that is quite into Scripture, then restoring lost Scriptures is something one should expect.

The Book of Mormon that was restored through Smith, with his seeing stone, was simply the first product of this ongoing enterprise; the Book is itself actually a restored compilation of several lost ancient scriptures. The Books of Moses and Abraham were further instalments. The fact that no further instalments have so far appeared, in nearly two hundred years, may be worrying, but surely no more worrying than the failure of Christ to return after two thousand years—and even ancient liturgical churches continue to recite the expectation of Christ's return every week in their Creeds.

The return of Christ may be emphasised less in modern Catholicism than it is in Pre-Tribulationist Southern Baptist congregations, but the modern Catholic Church still officially endorses the theory that Christ will someday return. In a similar way, the restoration of additional lost Scriptures may not be a front-burner pot that modern Mormons eagerly watch, but ongoing restoration of lost Scripture is still officially on the books in Mormon teaching.

That's a good answer to my question. It's not that the Restoration needed the Book of Mormon to make the Restoration happen, but that the general Restoration was bound to include, as an important feature, the restoration of lost Scriptures, and the Book of Mormon was the kick-off example of this.

I'd be content to call this thread closed.

Thank you for taking my rambling thoughts and reorganizing/summarizing the most important parts to make the point more lucidly!