Book of Mormon & LDS church

As most other Christian denominations utilize the Bible in the doctrine/definition/organization/structure of their churches, do the LDS use the Book of Mormon in a similar fashion? Can we find passages that define the teachings or structure we see. Does it illustrate a society they they mimic in modern times?

I am pretty sure I already know the answer to this question, but wanted to hear what others may say on this?

The Book of Mormon is, at most, bait. Sounds pretty Christian, its church must be Christian,
is the train of thought of the ignorant. Also, it convinces Mormons today that they are indeed
Christian (even though early Mormons actually differentiated themselves from “Christians”). It
also has a circular logic in Mormonism: The Book of Mormon is True because Joseph Smith
was a prophet and Joseph Smith is a prophet because the Book of Mormon is true.

In truth, the Book of Mormon has nearly ZIP to do with Mormonism, except maybe that 10%
tithing deal, which comes also from a misunderstanding also in the Bible, in which the tith–
ing given to Melchizedek in Genesis 14, where it actually reads that Abraham had given part
or all the spoils of some war or something like that. Spoils of War, NOT Tithing. ANYWAY**…**

The Book of Mormon says nothing about the MANY gods, says actually that God and Jesus
(who is God in a Modalistic sense) is eternal which is NOT the Mormon DOCTRINE. Book of
Mormon makes no mention of all the complex cosmology unique to Mormonism. It does talk
a some on Monogamy and strongly refutes Polygamy, which was so for a time in Doctrine &
Covenants, but D&C was changed to demand polygamy, while the Book of Mormon still for–
bids the practice.

The most Mormonism would lose by dropping the Book of Mormon
is gain in converts (safe maybe through reproduction), and its false
association with Christianity.

It’s the other way around. Mormon doctrine, definition, organization, structure reflect the ideas of a small group of 19th century Americans.

Thank you for the replies.

Any particular insight into why they so easily ignore these details? Yeah, I’ve read the other Mormon threads and assume those are the reasons here. Just seems, well, kind of obvious when the “founding” book, “another testament”, is not their foundational scripture and they’re so very much an obvious product of 19th century America; they don’t have solid apologetics with which to defend their claims.

OK, typing out loud here. See if this “makes sense”, even a little.

So, the Book of Mormon (“Another Testament of Jesus Christ”) is produced by Joseph Smith. It’s purpose, as noted above, is bait. One is asked to read the Book of Mormon, then the Holy Ghost (Spirit) will reveal the truthfulness of it to you and thereby validating/vetting Joseph Smith. From there the Book of Mormon is no longer a required foundational source as it bears little support to the LDS organization on its own. You have a “vetted prophet” and what he says is the foundational source (D&C, Pearl of Great Price, general church documents).

Without the witness of the Holy Ghost, the logic is circular. As has been argued before, and still, feelings/emotions/etc. are not valid for this determination. How does one know that it was the Holy Ghost and not bad forces, or wishful thinking? Seems if the Holy Ghost was going to get involved it could be a little more direct and not need a throwaway document to bring someone to the LDS organization.

So, now, assuming for a moment that we have vetted everything up to this point, how do you determine succession? We know how they do it today, but that was not in effect when Joseph Smith was killed. There are stories that suggest he wanted to pass the charisma of prophet onto his lineage. So, how is the guy after Joseph Smith vetted? Did Joseph Smith call out Brigham Young? Did he identify rules for succession (i.e., the way it is done today)? Without a vetted source calling out the rules for succession (or naming a name) then how is the new person vetted/validated? (I recognize that we can get more circular logic or at least emotion/feelings as the answer)

This is point of most of the splintering. His wife did not follow the main congregation to Utah. There are stories that other folks tried to usurp the title by claiming divine revelation, and it fooled some, until the individual recanted their story (sorry, don’t have easy access to this anecdote at the moment). So, the majority go to Utah, is that the designation of truthfulness, majority. If it is the simple, then none of them should be Mormon (they aren’t the biggest religion). So, we can deduce that they believe in a church that has a logical and validate-able process of progression of the prophet. How did it pass, authoritatively, to Brigham Young?

The Book of Mormon is a book of fiction written by js and probably sidney Rigdon. It was written taking things from other books including whole chapters lifted from the Bible.

It’s story of how it came to be is full of whimsical stories that have changed over the years.

How it was translated is full of whimsical stories that have changed over the years.

It was written to sound Biblical, to fool people. hence the plethora of “and it came to pass”

Over the years, it has undergone changes and discoveries have disproven earlier versions.

There has been no geographical, archaeological, geological, or any other “icals” evidences that have been found to support anything in the Book of Mormon.

It is the kind of book Jesus warned us about.

Actually, my sense is that many mormons are very troubled by these kinds of inconsistencies. I have a co-worker who studied at BYU, is an active mormon, and talks overly loud on the speaker phone (which explains how I know the following). He often talks to his mormon “brother” on the phone about mormon doctrine, history, etc. and the sense I get is that he is very troubled and wishes that the mormon church would settle some these issues and/or just admit it was wrong in the past.

I can assure you as a Mormon (hint), that we use the Book of Mormon all of the time. Of course we also use the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. These four books of scripture constitute the standard works. None can be taken individually. Of course one book of scripture focuses on certain topics while another book of scripture focuses on another.

But the Book of Mormon contributes virtually nothing in terms of Mormon Doctrine.

And you say we can’t take them individually? You better or else Mormons will get caught
again and again and again in the contradictions between the Bible and BoM_D&C_PoGP.

The Book of Mormon is actually in great conflict also with the D&C and PoGP.

When the Bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Book of
Mormon says Jerusalem, both can’t be correct, no matter what excuses
Mormon Apologists make that no REAL scholar takes seriously.

When the D&C at first forbids Polygamy, and so does the Book of Mormon,
(though evidence shows that Smith was practicing it as early as 1831, then
the D&C is changed later in favor of Polygamy, yet the Book of Mormon re-
mains monogamous, is there no cause for alarm?

Reading texts together is often important, true, context is everything, but when contradiction in place of context is found, that ought to
raise some suspicion, until a Mormon cries out, “I KNOW THE CHURCH IS TRUE AND THAT JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET OF
GOD AND THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON IS TRUE BECAUSE JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET BECAUSE HE TRANSLATED
THE BOOK OF MORMON,” and yada-yada … yadayada.

I like the idea that it was lifted off an upstate New York pastor. Seems to fit the timelines better. Had translated, lost it, was mad, nothing happened for months, then suddenly he produces more, faster than before. Sure, it’s possible during those months of nothing he was writing, revising, etc. Seems likely based on the other stories illuminating his character, that stealing it was more likely than writing it himself (at least, writing that much). Pretty convenient that he never retranslated the original pages, couldn’t he did not have the original source, that was what was lost. Makes no difference in the end, though. It is still a work of fiction no matter who wrote it.

not really true.

When I was LDS, I NEVER was challenged to read the Bible. It was always READ THE BOOK OF MORMON. And the quotes from leaders that “you can get closer to God reading the Book of Mormon than any other book”. And there was never “pray about the Bible and get the warm fuzzy to know it is true.”

The Bible is very secondary in the LDS Church

I can assure you as a past Mormon, that the way it is used is for telling stories or non-contextual quoting. Neither proves or uses the BoM as a foundational (organizational, structural, doctrinal, etc.) document. When we want core LDS doctrine/structure we have to go to D&C, PoGP, or church documents (like Journal of Discourses).

I understand that you believe they can’t be taken individually. Of course they can’t, none (except the Bible) is a divine document. D&C tells the structure/doctrines/teachings, PoGP tells you obscure theology, Bible makes you appear Christian, BoM provides the “proof” that you were “divinely” organized. We also do not use the Bible exclusively (Tradition, great theologians, doctors of the church, and so on opening up the Bible and Tradition to the lay), still, the Bible is not isolated from the organization, doctrines, teachings, structure, etc. like the BoM is for the LDS. The Bible is integral to those things.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.