© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Dear Brother Gehly:
I would personally love to have you submit an expanded treatment of this idea to us.
I can’t guarantee acceptance in advance — our reviewers are vigorous and quite independent — but I think it’s a topic worthy of further discussion.
Thanks!
First, excellent article, thank you. I would like to comment on a very short paragraph in the article. Please see p249.
“Like the bodily resurrection of Christ from death, the physicality of the Book of Mormon — purportedly recovered from a dead pre-Columbian civilization — resists attempts to treat it as merely symbol or metaphor. It forthrightly demands to be understood as literally, tangibly true. It virtually forces a sharp decision.”
This comparison between the bodily resurrection of Christ and the physicality of the Book of Mormon is something I presented on in Independence, MO, at the Book of Mormon symposium this year. Prof Sweat actually lectured right before me which provided the ideal transition to the comparison.
I would be very interested in expanding on this idea as presented and submitting and article for peer review in the journal. Just the fact that one sentence of the concept made it into this article – from an apologetic hero of mine – is a personal thrill. Thank you for your consideration.
I am more than happy that we have started to look at the Book of Mormons history in all its elements. Surely we have had copious books on its doctrines and commentaries, I have a large number myself.
The problem that has been damaging to individuals and the church is surely the lack of information over the last decades on the translation and events surrounding the Book of Mormon, our history ……and our poorly constructed lesson material…..and to me, I’ve felt ill informed about something so fundamental as how ‘it’ all came together and am enthralled by ‘From darkness unto Light” which has further opened up new information.
Again thanks for a fine review Daniel and look forward to reading another well researched book
I wasn’t aware of this book (though I have and have read the excellent MacKay/Dirkmaat volume), but I will order it this week. Excellent review and a great overview in its own right of historical evidences and issues surrounding the Book of Mormon.
Great stuff, Dr. Peterson, once again.
So the Book of Mormon is true. So what? What do we do about it?
I seem to recall that the Lord condemned the Church, which condemnation has not been lifted, specifically for paying lip service to the Book of Mormon while utterly neglecting to do what it says to do (D&C 84:54-59).
It seems that rather than continually rehashing the origin story of the Book of Mormon, maybe the Interpreter would be doing more good in the kingdom by going into the content, and helping us as a people lift the condemnation by showing us what the Book of Mormon says to do that we have been failing to do.
This might also help the fact that we are apparently increasingly unable to understand what Joseph Smith was talking about, as a recent article in the Interpreter pointed out. These two things may well be linked – having darkened minds may well be why Joseph is increasingly not understood (re: D&C 84). After all, the things of God cannot be understood except through the spirit of God.
If there’s something obvious that is found in the Book of Mormon that we’re not doing, and if we started doing it, maybe things could change – and we could not only lift the condemnation, but come to understand what Joseph was talking about because we would again have the heavens open to us.
Might it be related to the commandments which Jesus gave?
And what are these commandments? To cite a few:
Are we observing these things? Do we give to every man that asks, or do we turn down some (on whatever pretext)? If anyone sues us, do we let them win, or do we instead contend to preserve our possessions and our good names? Do we lend to all comers, or do we deny some (on whatever pretext)?
Didn’t we all, when we partook of the sacrament last, witness to God, the Eternal Father, that we were willing to keep Christ’s commandments? And did not the prayers include the promise that if we did keep his commandments, we would always have his spirit to be with us?
And if we had his spirit to be with us, wouldn’t we understand Joseph and come out of condemnation?
Just a thought.
Interpreter is certainly more than willing, and has demonstrated its willingness, to publish articles about the content of the Book of Mormon.
We published one today, for example.
Anybody who thinks we ought to publish more articles on subject x should seriously consider writing and submitting such an article. There’s no guarantee that we’ll publish it — we have rejected submitted manuscripts and we will certainly do so again — but we only publish articles that we’ve received.
“Log” makes a good point. It is our own obedience to what is taught in the Book of Mormon that opens the door to our being sanctified and hence genuine Saints. It is not merely holding an opinion about the Book of Mormon. Instead, it is our own faithful obedience to the covenants we have made with God.
“Log” does not, however, seem to realize that the teachings and warnings found in the Book of Mormon simply have no real role in the lives of cultural “Mormons” (or dissidents) who insist that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history. It is to indifferent, or marginal, cultural, or dissident “Mormons”–that is, those who, for whatever reason, do not seek sanctification and hence are not genuine Saints, that “log”should direct her/his remarks. Why?
The teachings found in the Book of Mormon, and hence what ‘Log” describes as the “what we do about it,” depends upon the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient history.
“Log” seems to insist that the problem is with the Church–what the Brethren. There is exactly nothing that prevents those who genuinely believe that the Book of Mormon is true from keeping the commandments, including giving to the poor and needy.
The problem is not with the Church of Jesus Christ (understood as the Brethren), but those “who seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness,” and hence who “worship some likeness of the world” and who are often merely marginal, indifferent, or nominal Saints who have slipped into an enervating cultural Mormonism, where reading the Book of Mormon as merely frontier fiction fashioned by Joseph Smith has become fashionable.
In addition, it seems odd to me that “log,” in his/her effort to snuffer the Church of Jesus Christ, does not reveal her/his identity.
Louis,
You fundamentally misunderstand me. I have spoken as clearly and as concisely as my command of English permits.
[Moderator note: a link to a personal blog was removed.]
“Log” makes a good point. It is our own obedience to what is taught in the Book of Mormon that opens the door to our being sanctified and hence becoming genuine Saints. It is not merely holding an opinion about the Book of Mormon. Instead, it is our own faithful obedience to the covenants we have made with God.
“Log” does not, however, seem to realize that the teachings and warnings found in the Book of Mormon simply have no real role in the lives of cultural “Mormons” (or dissidents) who insist that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history. It is to indifferent, or marginal, cultural, or dissident “Mormons”–that is, those who, for whatever reason, do not seek sanctification and hence are not genuine Saints, that “log”should direct her/his remarks. Why?
The teachings found in the Book of Mormon, and hence what ‘Log” describes as the “what we do about it,” depends upon the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient history. “Log” seems to insist that the problem is with the Church–that is, presumably the Brethren and not with indifferent Saints. There is exactly nothing that prevents those who genuinely believe that the Book of Mormon is true from keeping the commandments, including giving to the poor and needy.
The problem is not with the Church of Jesus Christ (understood as the Brethren), but those “who seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness,” and hence who “worship some likeness of the world” and who are often merely marginal, indifferent, or nominal Saints who have slipped into an enervating cultural Mormonism, where reading the Book of Mormon as merely frontier fiction fashioned by Joseph Smith has become fashionable.
In addition, it seems odd to me that “log,” in his/her effort to snuffer the Church of Jesus Christ, does not reveal her/his identity.