Mis-Using the Book of Mormon

Note: This is a long post.   I want to make a point as comprehensively as I possibly can, so please pardon the length.

I don't draw the straight-line connection between a testimony of the Book of Mormon and an automatic acceptance of all other truth claims of the LDS Church that some members of the Church do, especially onward in time all the way to our day.  There are way too many other factors that theoretically could come into play and break such a chain of logic.  I think there is a direct link to the Book of Mormon being an inspired recording of the word of God, exactly as we view the Bible in that regard (where inerrancy of the text is not required) and Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, exactly as we view Biblical prophets - but everything else doesn't have that direct correlation, imo.  After all, there are prophets who recorded the word of God but didn't establish new churches.  In fact, those that did were the very small minority, especially within Judeo-Christian history.  Most prophets are more like our modern prophets - caretakers more than radically innovative establishers.

However, I think we miss the real power of the Book of Mormon (the reason it is the keystone of our religion) when we have people read selected verses and passages to prove doctrine and fail to ask them to approach it as it asks to be approached - even if we insert the First Vision as the new keystone of our religion.  I don't see anywhere in the Book of Mormon that says, internally, in the words of the authors and abridgers, to use it as a doctrinal proof-text - especially by isolating and emphasizing specific verses and doctrines.  What it asks internally - what the words themselves ask - is that the book be read in its entirety in order to open the reader's mind to the reality that God has worked with people throughout history and, therefore, will speak directly to her and manifest truth to her.

When I attended Seminary, one of our Scripture Mastery passages was Moroni 10:3-5.  Now, as my children go through Seminary, the passage is only Moroni 10:4-5.  I think that is a shame, since it is 10:3 that sets the stage for 10:4-5.  Teaching Moroni 10:4-5 without 10:3 is an example of the proof-texting I'm addressing.

Moroni 10:4-5 reads:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  

That is Moroni's invitation (not a "challenge", which is another personal soapbox) - the "doctrine" of prayer and personal revelation, if you will.  It's fine to use that text to teach that doctrine.  However, leaving out Moroni 10:3 eliminates entirely a key part of the actual method Moroni is trying to encourage readers to use to go beyond proving doctrine and encounter really deep, meaningful understanding of and communication with God.

Moroni 10:3 reads:

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts." 

The proof-text approach "challenges" someone to pray about the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about some specific passages from the Book of Mormon - or, in many cases, to pray about everything else the missionaries are teaching.  It becomes a very generic:

"Pray about what we are teaching you, including the parts of this book we're quoting as we teach these things".  

**That's not what Moroni's actual words exhort people to do.**

Moroni says, "when you shall read these things" - which can be while reading or upon finishing reading the multiple records he and his father abridged into one volume, not a few proof-text passages.  Furthermore, 10:3 includes the following prior to 10:4 even asking people to pray:

1) Remember the Lord's mercy throughout time (described for those of Israelite descent explicitly throughout the Book of Mormon and the Bible but, interestingly, also applicable to a Buddhist in Japan or a Muslim in Iraq with regard to their own understanding of God's mercy to their own ancestors);
2) Ponder that mercy.

Moroni 10:3 does NOT say to ponder "these things" (doctrines) in "your mind" (by thinking about them).  It says to ponder "it" (God's mercy) in "your heart" (by feeling that mercy settle inside you).

A reader of the Book of Mormon can't have the experience Moroni is urging if the Book of Mormon isn't used as he's urging it to be used.  That reader might gain a converting testimony, but it won't be what Moroni is exhorting her to experience in her heart.  That is important to me.

A testimony of the First Vision can't provide the experience Moroni is exhorting people to have, either.  It is wonderful and a necessary part of the Restoration, but it is fundamentally different than the Book of Mormon.

The First Vision Is NOT the Keystone of Our Religion: Using the Book of Mormon as It Was Intended to Be Used

I feel strongly that we miss much when we fail to realize how the First Vision and the Book of Mormon were used in the early days of the Church within missionary work. 

When the Book of Mormon was used as the launching pad, as the catalyst in and of itself for an initial spiritual experience ("Here's Moroni's promise. Read this book from cover to cover with that promise in mind. Follow that promise. THEN, when you've done that, we'll start teaching doctrine."), missionary work flourished the most. When we started using the Book of Mormon as a doctrinal proof-text and started focusing on teaching doctrine over converting spiritual experience, missionary work flourished the least.

The structure of the Book of Mormon (especially Moroni 10:3-5 - all three verses, not just the last two, which now are used as the Seminary scripture mastery passage) is laid out in such a way to inspire people who read it to believe that God can and will speak to them (let them know the truth of all things) - and to have such a recognition subsequently allow them to read the Bible and understand and believe what it really says (primarily about God, their relationship to God and what the "power of godliness" really entails). Iow, the Book of Mormon allows people to read the Bible with "new spiritual eyes" through which the "mists of darkness" caused by centuries of bad Christian doctrine and apologetics can be overcome and people can understand who they really are.

I love the way Preach My Gospel is structured, and I love the flexibility it is supposed to provide for the teaching of doctrine, but I think we miss the mark when we don't use the Book of Mormon in the way that I believe it was intended to be used - when we make the First Vision the keystone of our religion. (I don't want to dismiss the First Vision in any way, but it's important to understand that everyone and their dog were having spiritual experiences during that time period in that geographic area; the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is unique.)

Joseph Smith History 1:19 - Summarizing and Quoting Deity

As a natural parser, I have looked closely (minutely, with dictionary in hand) at JSH 1:19 to try to understand what it actually says, and I can say with confidence that I have never read a more concise yet comprehensive description of the apostasy and its practical effects than that verse. Contrary to what many have claimed, both inside and outside the Church, it is quite measured and focused - and brilliantly precise. I have read lengthy treatises on the topic, by Mormon scholars and by Protestant theologians (though the Protestant theologians obviously didn't use the word "apostasy"), and in all their writings I have not once read as powerful and comprehensive a treatise as I see in that one small verse.

He who wrote it was an intelligent and articulate but not classically educated man, so I choose to believe he was summarizing and quoting deity.

"I saw two Personages"

I have had some extremely powerful spiritual experiences in my life, and I share them rarely and with hesitancy specifically because of how I have seen people respond to others who share extremely personal, spiritual experiences. I have seen the way people nit-pick and obsess over the tiniest, most irrelevant aspects and reject entire experiences for what amounts to nothing of significance.

How do I say I have seen God weep for the sins of His children, without making it seem like I am claiming to have had a vision? How do I encapsulate a conversion story from my mission into a concise narrative without making it seem shallow and formulaic - like I simply copied details and descriptions from other stories? How do I describe a deeply, intensely spiritual experience in such a way that someone who has never had such an experience will "get it" - and how in the world do I share it in a short enough narrative that readers don't lose interest as the story drags on and on and on? Finally, how do I summarize an experience with the Holy Ghost in such a way that someone who knows little or nothing of the Holy Ghost will understand what I mean?

Take my struggles and multiply them exponentially to encompass a vision of or visit from deity. The account Joseph wrote of his First Vision wasn't for the Christian world; it was for humanity at large. It was told in a tone of awe and astonishment - in a way that describes inexpressible wonder. "I saw two personages" is a PERFECT description of what initially must have hit Joseph's brain - BEFORE he had any idea of who the personages were. There is no indication anywhere that Joseph expected to see God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ, when he entered the woods. There is no reason to insist that, upon seeing them, he immediately thought, "Cool, this is the Father and the Son." Again, "personages" describes perfectly what he must have seen and thought as they appeared. It only was AFTER "the first [Personage] spoke, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other, 'This is my Beloved Son. Here Him,'" that Joseph must have begun to comprehend what was happening to him. Given my own experiences with overpowering spiritual experiences, I'm fairly certain he walked out of that grove with his head spinning - literally reeling from what had happened.

Even Joseph Smith Had to Learn Line Upon Line Over Time

I'm not convinced Joseph understood the implications of his own visions and revelations when they happened. We have a hard enough time contemplating them even almost 200 years later; I think he learned "line-upon-line" from each subsequent experience. I think he understood his First Vision better through the years as it was reinforced by other experiences, so . . .

I'm not sure if the Lord told him not to reveal all of the First Vision details or if he simply didn't understand it all, but I think it's a combination of the two. I think he was overwhelmed by it; after all, Moroni later had to repeat his visit three more times after the initial vision in order to be sure Joseph understood it all. Of the two, I'm fairly certain that the First Vision would have been more overwhelming and hard to fathom than Moroni's message.

When you boil everything else down to the most fundamental principle of the Restored Gospel, I think it can be stated as: "I am a child of God." The literal reality of that statement is mind-boggling even for us, much less for others still bound by the teachings of centuries - as Joseph undoubtedly still was even after the First Vision. It was and is the heresy that nearly got Jesus stoned; Joseph had enough trouble with his claim of translating the Book of Mormon; I think understanding the First Vision fully and broadcasting it publicly easily could have killed the Restoration before it got started.

That's speculation, of course, but it makes sense to me.

My Own Multiple "First Vision Accounts"

It is easy to judge another time by the conditions of our own. We live in a day and age where many people, even common people like you and I, record our thoughts and feelings and impressions and experiences without giving it a second thought. We live in an information age, but this has not been the standard for most of human history - even as recently as 50 years ago. Up until the explosion of computer technology, in fact, the people who recorded even their most treasured experiences were the tiny fraction of the population - and an even smaller percentage of the "uneducated masses" did so. Furthermore, very rarely did someone record even the most profound experiences immediately after they happened.

Until many years after the First Vision, there would have been no standard precedent or pressing need for Joseph Smith to record it. He verbally told his family and minister, at least, and that is completely consistent with the practice of his day for someone of his education. Only later, when others on a much broader level started asking about it would he naturally have thought to put it in writing - and, just like myself when recounting something from my past here in this forum, he would have picked and chosen what to share and how to share it based on the audience at the time.

I personally have experienced retelling a story somewhat differently on different occasions in order to emphasize certain points and not share others. I have told some of my own experiences with the Spirit to various audiences, and occasionally I have totally glossed over others who were involved in those experiences - for various, legitimate reasons. I also have attributed statements and quoted teachings to my father in order to be concise (yeah, hard to believe, I know), when, in fact, those things were not actual statements but rather things I learned from the way he lived his life - kind of compiled summaries that made sense to me in statements of my own creation. I believe that is a common practice of nearly all of us, so I would be very careful about judging Joseph for what I believe is nothing more than acting like someone in his situation naturally would act.