A Baptist Minister Testifies of the Book of Mormon

[unixknight]

I suspect he doesn't go into the origin of the book because it's really beside the point. He's saying it contains many truths but where it came from doesn't impact those truths. To get into whether it was divinely inspired/translated or not distracts from the point he's making, which is that there's a great deal of truth to be found there whether you're a Mormon or not.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Originally Posted by WANDERER

What he says makes sense to me. Perhaps it is not quite clear what he believes in terms of how that information was restored...yes revelation...but the actual recorded account? It also avoids the issue of it being historically true.

His goal was to point out and elaborate on the Christian themes in the Book of Mormon, not to testify of its historical authenticity. His is a spiritual testimony, not a scientific one. It'd be nice of more mormons could focus on the spirituality in the book the way he does.

[ama49]

This is funny. I wrote about this a few months back over on my blog at Grace for Grace.

I think it's possible to read the Book of Mormon and not be fully converted to Mormonism. If one simply reads the Book of Mormon it reads Protestant. Where Mormonism takes a sharp turn away from the mainstream is in latter revelations given through Joseph Smith, such as the King Follett discourse.

Regarding the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I wrote about that as well. Check it out on my site and let me know what you think:

Faith and Historicity of the Bible and Book of Mormon Grace for Grace

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Islander

I read his "book" and other testimonies some time ago. I also saw a short documentary that is no longer available from CBS on his experience as a "Mormon". It smelled as grandstanding to me. He did not actually convert. He found additional truths that resonated and he used his exposure to the BoM to call the attention of others about "the faults in understanding of the current Christian doctrine" as he realized while reading the BoM.

He NEVER address the issue of the prophetic messenger and revelatory nature of the Book. He NEVER acknowledges that if the message is true, so is the messenger, and the conduit thru which the message was revealed and everything else God revealed at the time!!

I think he was just trying to grow his congregation and sell a book.

I seriously doubt that he could grow his Baptist congregation by embracing the BoM!

No, I would suggest to you that, typical of Protestant Bible interpretation, this minister accepts the message of God, probably has general respect for Joseph Smith, but saw no need to embrace all of what he said and did. There is no Church of Abraham, or of Elijah...he saw no need to embrace Joseph Smith's new church, nor did he necessarily believe all of the added revelations. I've often been told that the BoM by itself is not a great departure from mainstream Christian teachings...that it's the D&C etc. that contain the substantive LDS distinctives.

So, while it's understandable that LDS faithful might see priestcraft in this minister's efforts, I take him at his word. Neither I, nor LDS would be comfortable in his church...but he is an interesting fellow.

[Islander]

PC:

Well, this is precisely what has happened to Christianity in the last 2000 years. People pick and choose what they want and like out of the bible, buffet style, build their view and theory around it and ignore the rest.

It is impossible to accept the BoM message and ignore its origins and reject the messenger. I guess you could but it would be just a denial rooted in preconceived ideas and notions. In fact, our Jewish friends do the same by ignoring certain chapters of Isaiah since then do not want to get in to the Messianic debate with us. They just pretend is not there.

The beauty of the BoM is its clarity and doctrinal transparency. Although it has its share of allegories and literary figures, it allows for no ambiguity. You may not agree with a certain doctrine in the BoM but it is impossible to claim that you do not understand what the text is referring to in that particular section. It details the Savior with the kind of clarity that is in many respects absent from the KJV.

To say that the BoM is inspired of God but the D&C is not is just not coherent. The Constitution is a foundation document. But in itself it is not enough to govern the people.. Other documents were required, body of government, laws, statutes and orders were created in order to actually provide a vehicle for governing the affairs of the country. The D&C is more or less that. Because it provides additional revelation, directives and perspective different from one's fixed view of Christianity does not render the document outside the purview of God. I think the resistance comes from other places rather. If "you've been told that the BoM is not a great departure from mainstream Christian teachings" isn't it time that you'd find outm for yourself?

Just a suggestion.

[a-train]

There were baptists in North Carolina where I served my mission that believed the Book of Mormon.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Islander

PC:

Well, this is precisely what has happened to Christianity in the last 2000 years. People pick and choose what they want and like out of the bible, buffet style, build their view and theory around it and ignore the rest.

Here's my retort: Since I don't like all the chaos and disunity in Protestantism...I'll start my own church.

Of course, that's a purely carnal analysis. But your church grew out of a period when many movements that were disatisfied with traditional Christianity, were birthed. Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Church of Christ...I could keep going...all decrying the lack of unity...all building additional divisions. And, so did Joseph Smith--unless of course, his revelations were true, and he restored the one true church.

It is impossible to accept the BoM message and ignore its origins and reject the messenger.

I dont see this effort catching on either. But, it's not impossible to do. Does the BoM teach that Joseph Smith would restore the one true church, after a great apostasy? If not, why couldn't someone read it and say, "Wow...this is of God. To bad the guy God used to find it, went off into his own wisdom, afterwards?" Again, I'm not saying he'd be right...but it is plausible.

I guess you could but it would be just a denial rooted in preconceived ideas and notions. In fact, our Jewish friends do the same by ignoring certain chapters of Isaiah since then do not want to get in to the Messianic debate with us. They just pretend is not there.

Or they interpret them in a non-christological fashion.

The beauty of the BoM is its clarity and doctrinal transparency. Although it has its share of allegories and literary figures, it allows for no ambiguity. You may not agree with a certain doctrine in the BoM but it is impossible to claim that you do not understand what the text is referring to in that particular section. It details the Savior with the kind of clarity that is in many respects absent from the KJV.

To say that the BoM is inspired of God but the D&C is not is just not coherent.

Didn't the BoM come first? Do you not pray over every new President, to discern if he is to be sustained or not? Did not even Joseph Smith seek to be sure that his writings were from God, before he publicized them?

The Constitution is a foundation document. But in itself it is not enough to govern the people.. Other documents were required, body of government, laws, statutes and orders were created in order to actually provide a vehicle for governing the affairs of the country. The D&C is more or less that. Because it provides additional revelation, directives and perspective different from one's fixed view of Christianity does not render the document outside the purview of God. I think the resistance comes from other places rather. If "you've been told that the BoM is not a great departure from mainstream Christian teachings" isn't it time that you'd find outm for yourself?

Just a suggestion.

It just may be difficult for one steeped in the fullness of Joseph Smith's teachings, to imagine that someone unfamiliar, would read the BoM, believe it to be from God, and then not come to the same conclusions about everything else he said and did. And, frankly, it is unusual. But...it's plausible that this minister came to that very conclusion.

[Islander]

You just reaffirmed my theory. You maybe inclined to believe the BoM is the word of God. But you have an issue with other texts (revelation) and the messenger. Our Hebrew brothers do the same. There are whole chapters of Isaiah that the whole Christian world know are Messianic and refer to the Savior. They have a different read. In fact they just decided to ignore them all together and avoid them like the plague.

My friend, you are doing the same. But I guess it is what it is and you already made up your mind.

[Neues_Deutschland]

Originally Posted by WANDERER

[...] It also avoids the issue of it being historically true.

Just let me say that I don't think there's one history book in print that's historically "true". There's always a point of view in conclusions about historical events with a certain bias. Why should I expect an absolute truth from a religious book, supposedly written by more or less faithful adherents of a church/religion? The whole idea doesn't make much sense to me. I guess we all know that the text of the first dictated manuscript of the BoM has been changed numerous times, and if we consider how this "ancient record" has supposedly been "translated" into English, there's no way to say it's been changed because of mistakes made by Joseph or his scribes (if we accept such a divine being that produced the English text).

I wouldn't expect anyone to join the LDS Church just because he/she likes the teachings of the BoM. IMO, the Church of the Nephites was quite a different thing than what we now have in Utah with its "Book of Abraham", "D&C", its different temple culture etc.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Islander

You just reaffirmed my theory. You maybe inclined to believe the BoM is the word of God. But you have an issue with other texts (revelation) and the messenger. Our Hebrew brothers do the same. There are whole chapters of Isaiah that the whole Christian world know are Messianic and refer to the Savior. They have a different read. In fact they just decided to ignore them all together and avoid them like the plague.

My friend, you are doing the same. But I guess it is what it is and you already made up your mind.

Island...don't be confused about what I'm doing here. I'm suggesting that it is plausible that someone...particular this Baptist minister...could believe the BoM, without accepting the rest of Joseph Smith's revelations.

Personally, I've not come upon a testimony that the BoM is true.