The Problem With The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is one of the most fundamental elements of the Mormon religion.  Missionaries travel around the world offering this book to people freely.  It is available for online perusal at http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng.  It contents are taught from seminaries, institutes, Sunday school classes, conferences, and other meetings in the Mormon religion.  Its name is the source of the nickname "mormon" for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

As a result of so much positive study of the Book of Mormon, many people in the LDS faith are somewhat shielded from criticism of the book.  This is probably as much the case as people outside of the LDS faith are shielded from positive study of the book.  The quirks of mormonism and the Book of Mormon are apparently easy to mock in the form of everything from internet memes to Broadway musicals.

The problem with the Book of Mormon is more than what those that would mock the church say.  Many members of the church will glaze over the flaws as if they do not exist.  They are in many cases painfully obvious.

Consider the teaching of the Book of Mormon prophet Amulek:

"And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made." (Alma 34:8-9)

This is extremely repetative.  How many times must we hear about this expedient atonement in the same breath?  Perhaps Amulek did not understand pronouns...

Consider the words of the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi:

"The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

 And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (2 Nephi 12:1-3)

This does not even pretend to be original.  The passage is just recycling the words of Isaiah.

The last prophet of the Book of Mormon, Moroni, was openly worried about these flaws:

"And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words." (Ether 12:23-25)

Moroni was right to worry.  The Book of Mormon is filled with mediocre language, run-on sentences, large quotations from Biblical passages, and similar content flaws. Why would anyone want such a flawed book to be considered the "keystone" of their religion? Why wouldn't a church try to hide this book in a place it would never be read? Why publish these blantant mistakes?

The answers to these questions are critical to understanding the truth about the Mormon faith.

The truth is that these mistakes are not important.  Certainly not more important than the flaws in the Bible.  Does it matter to Christians that the geneaolgies of Joseph do not match in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?  Should the book of Micah be stricken from the canon because he recycles the same passages of Isaiah that Nephi used? (Micah 4:1-2)  Was Moses less of a prophet because he complained about being slow of speech? (Exodus 4:10-16)

The truths of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are greater than confusing obscure passages.  The truth is that Jesus Christ guided his chosen people (both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon) and promised them land, posterity, power, and wisdom if they would keep his law.  The tragedy is that they did not.  The Jews were taken captive to Babylon and ultimately scattered.  The Nephites and Jaredites were swallowed up in terrible wars and ultimately annihilated.  The truth in these books was the same.  Prophets saw a day when the truth would return... when the promises and prophecies of old would be realized... when every nation, tongue, and kindred would learn of the saving power of the Christ...

These books, while freely available, did not come easily.  Many people gave their lives so that the Bible could be translated into common languages.  Prophets sacrificed much to bring the word of God to the people.  In the Book of Mormon, armies fell defending freedom, and family.  Many died to secure the blessings that come from living the law of the Lord in a precious land of promise.

The Book of Mormon, similarly involved great sacrifices by the people whose story it contains and also those that helped bring us the story.  Joseph Smith was mocked, beaten, robbed, driven from his home, wrongly imprisoned, and eventually murdered for his role in bringing this book and the truth in it to light.

The real problem with the Book of Mormon is that it is glazed over, softened, abbreviated, marginalized, and underappreciated by those to whom it has been given. 

It may not be as entertaining as Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Hunger Games, or a myriad of other popular titles... but it is far more important.  The claims associated with this book are bold. Mormons assert that Joseph Smith saw an angel that told him where to find them. He translated them into english by the power of God himself. 

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of reading the Book of Mormon.  I do not mean search for mistakes of the imperfect men who wrote and translated it...  I mean searching for the big picture. 

If it is the word of God, a message from heaven to us here and now, then what is he saying?  Does Jesus truly have the power that his apostles said he had?  Is he truly the son of God?

If God truly has caused this book to come forth... if God truly does have a message for humanity... if the Book of Mormon is true... it changes everything.

The Mediocre Mormon Talk

Many churches have ministers or pastors that perform their duties as a career.  The congregations of these churches typically benefit from the instruction of a speaker that is eloquent, passionate, and clear.  The storytelling skills of these individuals is typically quite impressive.  Successful pastors can hold the attention of large and even divers audiences for long periods of time.

Mormons do not have paid clergy.  The leadership of the church comes from the membership.  Our Bishops and High Priests must typically maintain separate jobs in addition to their ecclesiastical duties in order to support themselves.  While there are many advantages to the all-volunteer system, training in and passion for public speaking are not always among them.

Even in cases where leaders are gifted speakers the typical Sunday service provides speaking opportunities to members of the congregation.  This means that almost any person could be called upon to give a talk.  The result?  Mediocrity....

Many congregations will have a youth speaker that will give a 5-minute talk, followed by two adult speakers (often a married couple) that will each give talks between 10 and 15 minutes.

Frequently youth speakers will read a story from a periodical and perhaps a few applicable verses from the scriptures until their assigned time is expired.  This is not necessarily a bad technique for public speakers as young as 12, although forming a habit of just reading a few items that are probably related to the assigned subject is not good practice.

The true mediocrity appears more frequently in the adult talks.  Many times, the technique and even the content is identical to the youth speakers with the exception of lengthy and largely pointless introductions, and recitals of the moments when a member of the Bishopric contacted the speaker to give them the speaking assignment.  These recitals almost always involve the speaker talking about their loathing of public speaking and end with the phrase "but I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today..."

Another popular technique of mediocrity is to share the process of talk preparation.  This method usually begins with the phrase "...as I was looking for what to talk about..."  The speaker then goes on to talk about how they looked in the dictionary, they searched for talks that other people had given, they looked in the scriptures, or they talked to someone they knew.  This type of speaking rarely amounts to little more than stalling.  In fact, most of the techniques used in speaking revolve around a central goal of filling the air with words for the requested duration of time. 

While it is good to have some sources and quote some scripture, speaking should never exclusively be recycling other peoples thoughts.  In between reading quotes from church leaders or other sources, the speaker inserts their "original" commentary of "I really like this quote/story/scripture."  This is especially a problem when the assigned talk subject is... a talk.  These produce the worst results and the greatest chance that the speaker will just read large portions of someone else's talk, with little passion, insight, and typically with average articulation.

No wonder so many LDS services are mediocre.

Would anyone imagine Jesus speaking to people using these techniques?  It might start something like this abbreviated hypothetical version of a sermon (no blasphemy intended):

Hello everyone... I hope you'll bear with me today as I have been asked to speak to you... I thought I would start by introducing myself.  I'm Jesus.  I've lived most of my life in Nazareth, but I was actually born in Bethlehem and even lived in Egypt for a while while Herod was... well... killing babies.  I have a lot of experience in carpentry.  So that's me!

I was asked by my Father to talk to you about the gospel... I thought a long time about it.  In fact, I've fasted and prayed for a long time, and even been to the temple as I thought about what I would say.  I think that this assignment is going to be tough, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today.

The hypothetical sermon would then contain mostly quotes from the scriptures followed perhaps by the "I really like this scripture.  It means a lot." as the only original material.

The truth is that Jesus spoke boldly, passionately, and persuasively.  He wasn't just trying to 'get through' his sermons, or speak so as to fill an assigned interval of time.  He was speaking to persuade people to understand and to do what was right. (Matthew 5:17-19)  He was incredibly bold and taught ideas that were consistent with the law and the prophets, but with new and original insight. (Matthew 5:38-44)  He made it clear that his words were not simply to entertain, but his council was to be followed. (Matthew 7:24-27)  When he concluded, his audience was amazed by the power with which he addressed them.  Matthew writes "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:28-29)

The message of the Mormon church is bold.  Its purpose is not to fill a time interval in Sunday services, it is to change the world.  It represents the ultimate transforming power that makes bad men good and good men better.  There is no need to dilute the core truths with mediocrity.

Jesus Christ is the son of God.  He is alive and well, and he is guiding his church.  Joseph Smith saw him, and received power from him just as the apostles of old.  By his power, the Book of Mormon was translated, that we might have a purely prophetic book by which we can be made to understand faith, penitence, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and all important aspects of his unfailing kingdom.  He has given men the power to act in his name to spread his teachings and will to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

With so much powerful and profound truth, it is a shame to see mediocrity in talks and lessons.  The purpose of any talk should be to persuade men to come to Christ and to do his will.  Next to that, the speaker's brief biography, their methods of preparation, their liking of scriptures, quotes, and stories, or any stalling techniques are trivial, boring, and mediocre.

While no one can teach or speak as well as Jesus did, it sure would help if more people tried.

Why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?

A prominent atheist, Todd Steifel responded to questions from people of faith recently.  (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-prominent-atheist-activist-answers-your-most-burning-questions-about-faith-secularism/)  One of the questions he was asked was "If atheists have no faith, what is your reason for life?"

He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:

“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”

The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them?  If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone?  Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?

Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them.  I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.

The purpose of life is not to get to heaven.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth.  It began in heaven.

Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations.  The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days.  The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind.  After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)  After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden.  (Genesis 2:8-15)  After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20)  Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24)  This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order.  Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5) 

These passages highlight an important point.  Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created.  It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth.  The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.

Life challenges us to become something greater.  Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)  The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless.  It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete.  This is perfect tense.)

This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter.  He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12)  Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.

There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith.  Faith is a catalyst for improvement.  God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently.  Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater.  The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.

God provides universal and general guiding principals.  Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness.  Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good.  If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.

The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice.  If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain?  If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder?  If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie?  Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good?  That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.

God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions.  In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.

Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies.  If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose?  If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable?  If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life?  Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?

In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become.  Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose.  Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy.  Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end.  He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.

Quit calling him Savior!

In the early 1920's, Germany was in a difficult situation where they were required to pay reparations to the victorious nations from World War I although they had a weak economy.  To make the required payments, they printed a large amount of money.  The high supply of money in the market caused it to lose value very quickly.  This hyperinflation reached its worst in November of 1923.  The approximate value of 1 US dollar in German Marks was 4,200,000,000,000.  (http://www.sammler.com/coins/inflation.htm)

The effects of high supply are easy to see when hyperinflation sets in.  The more of something there is, the less valuable it becomes.  While being rare may not necessarily mean valuable, being common practically guarantees low worth.

The same is true of words.  Words that are frequently used do not stand out as being important.  I recall a person that frequently used the word "special" to describe people in a positive way.  They were a positive person, and so they called almost everyone "special."  Some time later I viewed the Disney/Pixar movie "The Incredibles" where the main antagonist Syndrome stated "Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can have powers. Everyone can be super! And when every one's super... no one will be." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/quotes)

This is even true in religious contexts.  The Apostle Paul refers to Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:14-17).  Latter-Day Saints have further insight regarding the name of the High Priesthood: "Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood." (D&C 107:2-4)

In spite of this principle's clarity in the scriptures, there is a trend among Latter-Day Saints that abuses it: the use of the term Savior.

This title is potentially an extremely powerful term.  A savior is a person who "saves, rescues, delivers." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savior?s=t)  This title is certainly appropriate for Jesus Christ, who suffered unjust and unimaginable pain voluntarily to spare the sons of men from so suffering.  He single-handedly beat death when he raised himself from the dead, and he freely shares the gift of life with all people that die.  He provides power that cannot be found from any other source.  There is no curse, no pain, no problem that is too great for him to overcome.  The term "savior" when used appropriately can imply all of this in a profound and powerful manner.

Unfortunately, the term is overused.  In meetings, talks, and lessons everywhere, I frequently hear the term used.  My experience is that the term is used more than "Jesus", "Christ", "Lord", or any combination of these terms (i.e. "Jesus Christ" or "the Lord Jesus Christ").

As a result, instead of the profound potential meaning of the word being invoked, the term "savior" has become a name.  It has become common.  It frequently loses its meaning other than being a reference to Jesus.

I believe that part of the reason that he has so many names and titles is so that he does not become common or lose value in speech or print.  If it is important to refer to him in a simple manner (such as when teaching young children), why not follow the pattern laid out in the holy scriptures?  Using the names "Jesus" or "Christ" (or an amalgamation of these) are frequently done in the New Testament.  The tetragram referring to him can be understood in the Old Testament use of LORD, and also represents a valid simple reference to him.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)

I encourage the use of various names and titles to help understand his character, roles, and powers.  I appreciate the use of the terms "Master", "King", and "Messiah".  There is no shortage in the supply of names which are respectful and accurate.  Whatever terms are used, it is important that effort is exerted to ensure Christ is not thought of in a common way.  While he ought to be known and recognized by all, his value should not be diminished in writing or speech because he is the most important person that has ever or will ever live...  he is our Savior.