Prisonchaplain reads BoM - observations

[prisonchaplain]

OK...so I prayed for wisdom and discernment--perhaps an evangelical version of the Moroni challenge. I went through it in one setting, skim-reading, focussing on the flow, on general events, and on any noteworthy passages. I did not gain any testimony to the book's veracity, but I found a few noteworthy criticisms it offers of the modern church. In particular:

1. Belief in Predestination, Limited Atonement is roundly condemned as damnable. It's implied that those who believe such are arrogant.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.

4. Less directly, recited prayers are disparaged.

What struck me about all these was not the legitimacy or failure of these criticisms but the apparent anachronism of it all. Occasionally the chapter didn't even seem to fit naturally. The soldiers are traveling and just stumble across this temple where they stumble upon the heresy.

The above may not disprove the BoM, but I was surprised to find them, since I've repeatedly been told that this book contains very little that most Christians would not agree with. Ironically, I mostly agree with the observations--I just found them strangely placed.

 

[SoftSpoken]

OK...so I prayed for wisdom and discernment--perhaps an evangelical version of the Moroni challenge. I went through it in one setting, skim-reading, focussing on the flow, on general events, and on any noteworthy passages. I did not gain any testimony to the book's veracity, but I found a few noteworthy criticisms it offers of the modern church. In particular:

1. Belief in Predestination, Limited Atonement is roundly condemned as damnable. It's implied that those who believe such are arrogant.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.

4. Less directly, recited prayers are disparaged.

What struck me about all these was not the legitimacy or failure of these criticisms but the apparent anachronism of it all. Occasionally the chapter didn't even seem to fit naturally. The soldiers are traveling and just stumble across this temple where they stumble upon the heresy.

The above may not disprove the BoM, but I was surprised to find them, since I've repeatedly been told that this book contains very little that most Christians would not agree with. Ironically, I mostly agree with the observations--I just found them strangely placed.

Kudos to you for reading it, even if it was "skimming." That's 1,000 times more what many people have done who do find fault with it. Did you get from your reading what you desired to get?

 

[illyume]

Yeah, major respect to you for that, prisonchaplain, and especially with taking it in such an objective perspective, from what I can tell, not making your mind up entirely on the book after even just a full skim-through.

I can see how you'd find the placement of some things odd. A lot of times, the narrative -doesn't- flow so well.

It's probably beneficial to keep in mind that, after the portion around 1/3 in, titled "The Words of Mormon", everything is taken from an abridgement the prophet-historian Mormon made some time in (I think) the fourth century AD. So, basically, he was taking a bunch of stuff that had all been written, and kinda smooshing it into the most important bits of history and theology he could, as directed by God. Sometimes the pieces that were kept don't quite mesh perfectly together.

Also, remember that a lot of the time, through the history of this people described in the book, they were a fairly religious people, and would hold religious services on a regular basis. Some of the oddly-placed theological sermons, or what-have-you, i imagine are things that were originally part of just normal religious discussion and services, and ended up being quite noteworthy, and so they were kept in record. (This is somewhat speculative on my part, mind you, not sound doctrine or proven history.)

I do hope as well that you got what you hoped to out of reading it, and that further reading, if you decide to read through anything more, serves you well!

Cheers, prisonchaplain.

 

[superwimp]

OK...so I prayed for wisdom and discernment--perhaps an evangelical version of the Moroni challenge. I went through it in one setting, skim-reading, focussing on the flow, on general events, and on any noteworthy passages. I did not gain any testimony to the book's veracity, but I found a few noteworthy criticisms it offers of the modern church. In particular:

1. Belief in Predestination, Limited Atonement is roundly condemned as damnable. It's implied that those who believe such are arrogant.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.

4. Less directly, recited prayers are disparaged.

What struck me about all these was not the legitimacy or failure of these criticisms but the apparent anachronism of it all. Occasionally the chapter didn't even seem to fit naturally. The soldiers are traveling and just stumble across this temple where they stumble upon the heresy.

The above may not disprove the BoM, but I was surprised to find them, since I've repeatedly been told that this book contains very little that most Christians would not agree with. Ironically, I mostly agree with the observations--I just found them strangely placed.

Hello prison chaplain,

I used to believe in a historical book of mormon until very recently. I would be curious to see how you arrived at some of these comments as a result of the book of mormon teachings.

1. Belief in Predestination, Limited Atonement is roundly condemned as damnable. It's implied that those who believe such are arrogant.

Belief in predestination and the question of whether we have free will is a logical conclusion to whether we believe that God has a complete knowledge of the future. Both many Christians and many LDS also believe God knows the future. Calvinists have gone to one extreme in claiming that some individuals are predestined to be saved. This view doesn't represent the majority of Christianity.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

This is a religious argument which was significant in the 1830's and is still discussed. As a Catholic I was taught that unbaptized babies went to limbo. The Catholic church has recently changed there mind on limbo. I'm not sure what there present teaching is on unbaptized babies. I personally don't see any harm created by baptising a baby.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

The baptism of little children is defined as a mockery.

"Moroni 8:9": 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me;wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little ​

children.


3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.<<<

"2 Nephi 26:29": 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the
world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

Priestcraft is defined above. How do you arrive at your definition of priestcraft. The first part of the definition is defining priestcraft and the second part is the reason priestcraft are established.

4. Less directly, recited prayers are disparaged.

The way an individual prays is up to him in deciding what is most effective. What set the Chruch of Christ (temple lot) apart from all other churches **for me** was that they kneeled down when they had community prayer rather than just bowing there heads. I've prayed in sackcloth and ashes. I've recited the prayer found in the book of Daniel. You should decide for yourself how you should pray.

 

[A New Dawn]

OK...so I prayed for wisdom and discernment--perhaps an evangelical version of the Moroni challenge. I went through it in one setting, skim-reading, focussing on the flow, on general events, and on any noteworthy passages. I did not gain any testimony to the book's veracity, but I found a few noteworthy criticisms it offers of the modern church. In particular:

1. Belief in Predestination, Limited Atonement is roundly condemned as damnable. It's implied that those who believe such are arrogant.

2. Infant baptism is condemned as denying God's love.

3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.

4. Less directly, recited prayers are disparaged.

What struck me about all these was not the legitimacy or failure of these criticisms but the apparent anachronism of it all. Occasionally the chapter didn't even seem to fit naturally. The soldiers are traveling and just stumble across this temple where they stumble upon the heresy.

The above may not disprove the BoM, but I was surprised to find them, since I've repeatedly been told that this book contains very little that most Christians would not agree with. Ironically, I mostly agree with the observations--I just found them strangely placed.

Growing up as a Book of Mormon-believing RLDS, I believed all these things because they were written in the BoM, and because Joseph Smith changed many verses in the Bible so that they agree with the BoM. Since coming to the understanding that the restoration is faulty, founded on untruths, I have had to let go of a lot of things, especially after reading the Bible without the JS changes. (I owned and used the Inspired Version of the Bible exclusively, so I did not know what had been changed and what hadn't until the months following my conversion to mainstream Christianity, and when I read the unaltered Bible, I had to sit with my IV next to me and read them simultaneously so I knew what was changed and how those changes impacted doctrines that were taught.) Some things are harder to let go of, I still do not like recited prayers/creeds, I do not believe in infant baptism, but I find enough scriptures present in the unaltered Bible to believe that God has predestined some for election and salvation. I also do not believe that the verse that superwimp quoted related to priestcraft is anything more than a biased way of judging someone's walk with God. Judgment like that requires knowing the heart of someone else, and just as I would never make the judgment that someone can't be saved because they are LDS, I do not see how they can make the judgment that someone who is paid for preaching is only doing it for the money and fame.

 

[xenic101]

3. Priestcraft--the paying of clergy, and the self-promotion of them, is repeatedly condemned.<<<

"2 Nephi 26:29": 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

Priestcraft is defined above. How do you arrive at your definition of priestcraft. The first part of the definition is defining priestcraft and the second part is the reason priestcraft are established.

It condemns men who preach for temporal gain, money, power, ect, but who aren't preaching for the righteous benefit of the people. If you are preaching because you believe God has called you to do so, good. If you are preaching because you believe you are helping those in need of spiritual guidance, good. If you are preaching for personal power and glory, not good. It's not an outright condemnation of being paid as a preacher, but addresses the motives behind why one preaches.

 

[A New Dawn]

It condemns men who preach for temporal gain, money, power, ect, but who aren't preaching for the righteous benefit of the people. If you are preaching because you believe God has called you to do so, good. If you are preaching because you believe you are helping those in need of spiritual guidance, good. If you are preaching for personal power and glory, not good. It's not an outright condemnation of being paid as a preacher, but addresses the motives behind why one preaches.

But preaching for money has been condemned here by the LDS, even though they don't know the ulterior motives of the people doing it.

 

[xenic101]

But preaching for money has been condemned here by the LDS, even though they don't know the ulterior motives of the people doing it.

I'm not sure when or where. I don't remember it.

I was discussing 'paid clergy' with someone who was recently ordained a pastor, and we were able to see advantages and disadvantages of both. While I still feel that paid clergy has greater potential for issues, I certainly don't condemn it.

Of course my world isn't limited to black and white, so I can disagree without being opposed.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not sure when or where. I don't remember it.

I was discussing 'paid clergy' with someone who was recently ordained a pastor, and we were able to see advantages and disadvantages of both. While I still feel that paid clergy has greater potential for issues, I certainly don't condemn it.

Of course my world isn't limited to black and white, so I can disagree without being opposed.

The last discussion I recall on it was maybe 1-2 years ago. It isn't a frequent discussion here, but it has been discussed. And I agree that there are pluses and minuses to both types.

 

[superwimp]

It condemns men who preach for temporal gain, money, power, ect, but who aren't preaching for the righteous benefit of the people. If you are preaching because you believe God has called you to do so, good. If you are preaching because you believe you are helping those in need of spiritual guidance, good. If you are preaching for personal power and glory, not good. It's not an outright condemnation of being paid as a preacher, but addresses the motives behind why one preaches.

Hello xenic,

I noticed you highlighted the end portion of the verse. Look at the definition again and tell me which is the definition and which is the explanation of why priestcraft is practiced. You highlighted why priestcraft is practiced. Priestcraft is the teaching that some individual, usually the leader of the organization, that they have some sort of special enlightenment that others don't have.

"2 Nephi 26:29": 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

 

[Rescued One]

LDS recite the exact same prayers in every single sacrament meeting before passing the bread and water.


Paid Clergy?

1 Peter 5:2 not for filthy lucre

A lay clergy, such an unusual and distinctive characteristics of Mormonism, performs with less training, education, or pay than their sectarian counterparts. U.S. News and World Report noted that the median annual salary for paid clergy was $78,690. (March 19, 2007 issue, p. 40) One Episcopalian church listed their clergy fees on the internet: $1500 for a wedding, $750-1300 for a funeral (cost depending number of musicians involved).

With such well-paid competition, how could the LDS bishops possibly survive without pay? The system of having men serve for free while keeping their day-jobs defies mortal logic. But the system is not of mortal design. The Lord knows that motivation is not a problem for those shepherds who love their flock and serve them with a ready and willing mind. They need neither constraint nor filthy lucre to feed their flocks. The payday for these bishops comes “when the chief Shepherd” appears and gives them a “crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (v. 4)
1 Peter 5

But the Doctrine and Covenants says:


And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him. (Doctrine and Covenants 43:12-13)

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. (Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73)

 

[illyume]

Phoebe Ann:

Thanks. These verses in the Doctrine and Covenants had troubled me too in the past, until I realized that 'Mormonism' doesn't condemn paid clergy outright. As a practice, the modern LDS church has deemed fit to use a lay clergy, (and one could argue the reasons for that, either in favor of the church or in opposition,) but such a convention doesn't make doctrine.

It's an interesting point. Though, I'm afraid we're starting to drift from topic.

 

[prisonchaplain]

Kudos to you for reading it, even if it was "skimming." That's 1,000 times more what many people have done who do find fault with it. Did you get from your reading what you desired to get?

I'd say I did. It's been suggested that I should look to church manuals for explication, particularly of the issues raised here. Would you agree.

 

[SoftSpoken]

LDS recite the exact same prayers in every single sacrament meeting before passing the bread and water.

Other faiths may not make a distinction, but those are ordinances, not personal prayers. The Zoramites, who are the principle ones mentioned in the BoM as reciting prayers, were individually getting up in front of everyone on their raised platform and reciting the same prayer. According to the record, that was the extent of their worship service, at which time they'd all go home and not speak of God again until the next meeting. I'm not so sure it was the repetition of the prayer, rather than the mechnical nature of their feeling toward God, that is truly to be condemned. Talk about savlation by works!

But the Doctrine and Covenants says:

And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him. (Doctrine and Covenants 43:12-13)

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. (Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73)

This was when the Church was instructed to live under the law of Consecration. In such a Celestial society, everyone labored for Zion.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I'd say I did. It's been suggested that I should look to church manuals for explication, particularly of the issues raised here. Would you agree.

Of course that's a good place to go. Or you could ask us members, too. It's totally up to you. If you are more comfortable reading the material on your own, I'm sure you'll find all you need at lds.org.

 

[prisonchaplain]

It condemns men who preach for temporal gain, money, power, ect, but who aren't preaching for the righteous benefit of the people. If you are preaching because you believe God has called you to do so, good. If you are preaching because you believe you are helping those in need of spiritual guidance, good. If you are preaching for personal power and glory, not good. It's not an outright condemnation of being paid as a preacher, but addresses the motives behind why one preaches.

I do sense that LDS today are less scandalized by the professional clergy in most Christian churches. On the other hand, I would be surprised if there did not remain a sense of pride in the all-volunteer teaching and administerating that drives most of LDS wards and stakes. Sadly, a few of our biggest evangelical leaders have indeed given cause for suspicion to the long-time practice of setting aside clergy for full-time study and ministry.

 

[prisonchaplain]

Of course that's a good place to go. Or you could ask us members, too. It's totally up to you. If you are more comfortable reading the material on your own, I'm sure you'll find all you need at lds.org.

Well I was asking the member, and he suggested the manuals. Then another mentioned the Zoramites and posted a short article on them. So, I'm gleaning where I can.

 

[superwimp]

I'd say I did. It's been suggested that I should look to church manuals for explication, particularly of the issues raised here. Would you agree.

Hello prisonchaplain,

While Christianity has one bible, each church will have differences in there interpretation of it. Some interpretations are close to what is actually said and some are interpreted in such a way as to conform to a larger belief system. While the LDS is by far the largest church of all the lds churches, it shouldn't be necesarily viewed as the final authority on what the book of mormon or any other book teaches.

 

[A New Dawn]

Hello prisonchaplain,

While Christianity has one bible, each church will have differences in there interpretation of it. Some interpretations are close to what is actually said and some are interpreted in such a way as to conform to a larger belief system. While the LDS is by far the largest church of all the lds churches, it shouldn't be necesarily viewed as the final authority on what the book of mormon or any other book teaches.

This is true, though they claim to be. When I was RLDS, I was told that my interpretation of BoM passages was faulty because I wasn't part of their church. In fact, they still make that claim when I discuss how I interpreted things as an RLDS.

 

[RufustheRed]

Other faiths may not make a distinction, but those are ordinances, not personal prayers. The Zoramites, who are the principle ones mentioned in the BoM as reciting prayers, were individually getting up in front of everyone on their raised platform and reciting the same prayer. According to the record, that was the extent of their worship service, at which time they'd all go home and not speak of God again until the next meeting. I'm not so sure it was the repetition of the prayer, rather than the mechnical nature of their feeling toward God, that is truly to be condemned. Talk about savlation by works!



This was when the Church was instructed to live under the law of Consecration. In such a Celestial society, everyone labored for Zion.

So was this doctrine suspended by revelation like the plural marriage manifesto or the allowance of the priesthood to the blacks? Oh, that's right... there never was a revelation prohibiting the blacks from having your priesthood, was there?

I guess I am only asking about the suspension of the bishop's pay.

Rufus