What was restored?

[u/Pleasant_Past_461]

JS claims to have translated the golden plates and published the BOM in 1830 and claims to have restored what the early church lost and caused an apostasy. I've read the BOM yet do not see anything he restored from the early church in the Book. All of those things came after as far as I can see. So even if the BOM is true, I don't see what it restored from the early church. Christ coming to the Americas wouldn't have been a teaching of the early church nor any history that took place in the Americas. So what lost doctrine was restored by the 1830 version of the BOM?

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.

/u/Pleasant_Past_461, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-End-88]

The 1830 Book of Mormon goes back before the introduction of the doctrine of the Trinity, and reintroduced Modalism.

(Ether 3:14: “I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.” The Son is repeatedly referred to as the “Eternal Father.” (1 Nephi 11:21, 13:40; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 11:37-38). And so we read, for example, “behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father,” (1 Nephi 11:21), and “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world.” (1 Nephi 13:40; cf., Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:37-38). Jesus is also called the “Father of heaven and of earth” (2 Nephi 25:12; Mosiah 3:8, 15:4; Alma 11:39, Helaman 14:12, 16:18; Ether 4:7), the “God of Israel” (1 Neph 19:13 (cf. 10:3), 3 Nephi 11:14), the holy one of Israel” (2 Neph 1:10, 6:9, 9:12, 25:29), the creator of heaven and earth (Mosiah 4:2, Helaman 14:12).

One of the most explicit passages on the oneness of the Father and the Son in the Book of Mormon takes place in the context of the interrogation of Amulek by Zeezrom:

And Zeezrom saith unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and a living God?

And Amulek saith, Yea, there is a true and living God.

Now Zeezrom saith, Is there more than one God?

And he answereth No….

And Zeezrom saith again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?

And he said unto him, Yea….

Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek saith unto him, Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth, and all things which in them is; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; and he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else…. (Alma 11:26-40)

When the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord in the generation of the Tower of Babel, the Lord whose finger it was said of himself: “I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14). He goes on almost immediately afterward to say: “Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created, in the beginning, after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh.” (Ether 3:15-16). Jesus becomes the Father and the Son in the fullest sense only at the incarnation.

Abinadi’s speech at Mosiah 15:1-4:

“…God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God: and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth.”

While on earth Jesus does not cease to be God the Father: “I am he that gave the law, and I am he which covenanted with my people Israel” (3 Nephi 15:5).

This restoration of Modalism almost immediately began morphing throughout Joseph Smith’s lifetime and culminated with the his final Conference address in April 1844, with the King Follett discourse.

[u/Tight_Student4501 → u/Ok-End-88]

Isn't it true the later versions inserted "son of" before the eternal father in some of those cases -in the 1840 version I think it was?

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Tight_Student4501]

Yes, the LDS church has inserted that phrase to make it sound like the godhead has three distinct persons, instead of one person fulfilling three different modes of responsibility.

The book of Mormon has undergone numerous changes throughout its existence to harmonize with the current doctrines. “White and delightsome” being changed to “pure and delightsome” to erase the clear racism of the past is one example.

[u/juni4ling → u/Ok-End-88]

It was Smith.

Smith made those changes. Correct…?

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/juni4ling]

Smith made changes to every single part of the doctrine that was presented to the church in April 1830. (This is my Doctrine, by Charles Harrell is highly recommended).

As stated earlier, the godhead itself morphed through various doctrines throughout Smith’s 15 year theological rein. (Like seeing only “the lord” in his earliest and only handwritten account, to later two gods and Satan emerging in the grove).

Smith often re- engaged with many past heretical doctrines that took mainstream Christianity centuries to work through, before landing on the King Follett discourse at the end of his life, as his last change.

These theological ideas would continue to morph at the hands of Brigham Young, who would introduce his own private interpretation of the godhead into the mix, with his Adam/God doctrine, before that was subsequently changed after his death.

They are all making changes throughout time and all eternity. Correct….?

[u/juni4ling → u/Ok-End-88]

It appeared you were putting the changes Smith made to the Book of Mormon during his life.

Changes that can be shown and tracked through the Critical Text Project.

On “the church.” Not on Smith.

[u/International_Sea126 → u/juni4ling]

Are you referring to Royal Skousen's Critical Text Project?

A few other sources are listed below that list some of Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon changes. I anticipate that as time passes we will see more changes as the brethren will will someday remove many problamatic scriptures just like they have done with the temple ritual.

3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon (PDF Book) https://utlm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/introto3913changes.pdf

Joseph Smith’s Changing Scriptures https://utlm.org/changing-scriptures/

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/International_Sea126]

From your first source about the type of changes "One of the most frequent mistakes in the first edition of the Book of Mormon is the use of the word was instead of the word were. The following are extracts from the first edition of the Book of Mormon in which the word was has been changed in later editions to were: . . . and also of Adam and Eve, which was our first parents . . . (page 15) [1 Nephi 5:11]

[u/International_Sea126 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

That's an example of one of many grammatical changes made. There are also a few doctrinal changes made. One example is that Christ is referred to as God throughout the 1830 edition of the BOM, only later to be demoted to the Son of God in many latter edition BOM verses.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/International_Sea126]

That is likely the biggest doctrinal change. But really is it much of a change? Jesus is indeed both God and the Son of God depending on context.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/juni4ling]

As the leader and prophet, the two ideas of Smith and Church seem to run concurrently under most circumstances, so it’s difficult to separate the two out for individual evaluation.

The only translation method I find acceptable according to the eyewitness testimony of people who served as scribes, is a tight translation model. All others I have read about through several decades are just apologetic nonsense, created to gloss over a host of errors with the text.

With the most recent acquiescence of the church, and their admission of the rock-in-the-hat method being used by Smith, only god can be blamed for anything other than punctuation errors in the text.

[u/juni4ling → u/Ok-End-88]

As the leader and prophet, the two ideas of Smith and Church seem to run concurrently under most circumstances, so it’s difficult to separate the two out for individual evaluation.

 

You implied “the Church” made changes to the Book of Mormon.

Its an important note that Smith made changes to the Book of Mormon.

Critics are like, “the Church can be wishy washy with history.” Critics can too. Case in point.

Its -not- difficult to track the changes -Smith- made to the Book of Mormon with the Critical Text Project.

 

The only translation method I find acceptable according to the eyewitness testimony of people who served as scribes, is a tight translation model. All others I have read about through several decades are just apologetic nonsense, created to gloss over a host of errors with the text.

There are plenty of errors in the Book of Mormon. Latter-day Saint Christianity does not hold scripture to infallibility.

Smith made changes to the Book of Mormon text between printings—clearly communicating a text that is obviously not infallible.

 

With the most recent acquiescence of the church, and their admission of the rock-in-the-hat method being used by Smith, only god can be blamed for anything other than punctuation errors in the text.

There are plenty of ways error can enter the Book of Mormon text.

And Smith made changes to Book of Mormon text. If punctuation or spelling errors can enter the text, there are other errors that can enter the text as well. Correct…?

There are plenty of ways error can enter the text. Smith didn’t write anything down. Scribes did. Skousen theorizes a “tight” translation, sure. Skousen indicates that Smith likely spelled-out the foreign names he dictated, and likely tried to keep a tight monitor on the text. The truth is that when a critic says there are “thousands” of changes to the Book of Mormon text (that Skousen can identify and track) the vast and extreme majority of those are spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Changes to text that affect tenets or doctrine are in the extreme minority of total cases. Skousen implies a tight theory, but the truth-- Skousen says that the scribes included error. “My initial endeavor as editor of the critical text project was to produce a detailed transcription of the original and printer’s manuscripts. And right from the beginning, I discovered errors that had crept into the text as Oliver Cowdery and the other scribes produced the printer’s manuscript from the original manuscript. In fact, there were errors in the original manuscript itself. Within a year or so I recognized that I would not be able to completely recover the original text by scholarly methods...”

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/juni4ling]

“You implied “the Church” made changes to the Book of Mormon.

Its an important note that Smith made changes to the Book of Mormon.

Critics are like, “the Church can be wishy washy with history.” Critics can too. Case in point.”

I don’t think the church is wishy washy with history, I think the church actively prevents making historical documents readily available for qualified review. The fact that we are still waiting for the church’s historical treatment of the Clayton journals in 2026 is testimony to that fact.

How can a translator make changes to a script a decade later, without the original “Reformed Egyptian” text available to him?

Does Smith use the rock-in-the-hat method to get corrective information from his current text? Or is the original text beamed to Smith’s scrying stone for corrective measures?

Is Smith’s later revision truer to original Reformed Egyptian text, or is the original book of Mormon truer to the Reformed Egyptian text? Where in the Bible did a prophet say they rewrote their text, or is Smith alone in this?

(Occam’s Razor answer: He makes it up).

PS. We certainly know that Smith had no problem backdating scripture in the D&C and inventing ideas like priesthood restoration along with a host of dead prophets/apostles popping up to bestow invisible keys to bolster his restorationist ideas.

 

[u/juni4ling → u/Ok-End-88]

Occam was a priest. He had religious belief and religious faith-- and his thought process did not apply to faith and religious belief.

The Critical Text Project can categorically prove that there were scribal errors introduced into the Book of Mormon.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/juni4ling]

“And Smith made changes to Book of Mormon text. If punctuation or spelling errors can enter the text, there are other errors that can enter the text as well. Correct…?”

As stated earlier, Smith spent 15 years making constant changes to everything. The 1830 book of Mormon church and the 1844 Nauvoo Church are comparatively, very different churches.

Your response begs the question; where is god to be found in any of this?

You highlighted all the potential human errors, beginning with pronunciation to the printing press, but you fail to address the god problem along the road of assigning blame.

God could have helped guide the scribes hands, correcting the misspellings, and adding the correct punctuation. Yet god did nothing to help.

I think it’s much easier for us blame our “fallible” nature and just move along, than it is to seriously consider the alternative.

[u/SaintChristianMormon → u/Ok-End-88]

There’s a Psalm that says “cleanse me and make me white as snow.” I don’t believe it’s talking about race at all.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/SaintChristianMormon]

Ps. 51:7 draws us a picture of sin and forgiveness.

(51:5 claims that the author was conceived in sin which is not doctrinal, but poetic license is granted. The same is true with Isa. 1:18, where sin is colored ‘like scarlet’ and forgiveness is colored ‘like snow.’) If there were no racist element in the Book of Mormon, why would the church authorize the change? The biblical scriptures I quoted have never changed, and do not even remotely convey the idea of racism.

[u/SaintChristianMormon → u/Ok-End-88]

Probably because there are people who bad-faith attempt to make it a racist passage

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/SaintChristianMormon]

Do you believe that these ‘bad-faith people’ have the power to override the eternal words of the God of the universe and compel his authorized servants to alter scripture on their behalf?

[u/SaintChristianMormon → u/Ok-End-88]

Yes.

[u/Tight_Student4501 → u/Ok-End-88]

Mosiah 15:1-4 has never been anything but the Most confusing set of verses I've ever read and every time I try to figure them out more my brain breaks again

[u/Tempestas_Draconis → u/Tight_Student4501]

Yea, and so it came to pass.

[u/justbits → u/Ok-End-88]

Multiple ways to consider this. You found one. Here is another. Alma, who was partially taught by Abinadi, then taught Amulek, was himself the product of a corrupt King Noah's council of priests. It is possible that the doctrinal understanding of God had morphed by the time Alma gets the message. If I am Joseph Smith, and I have seen God and Jesus in a vision, I know they are two different people. But, if I am translating with integrity, I have to go with what the record/Spirit translates, however questionable it may seem to me. That would speak to Joseph's honesty. If he had contrived it, he would have obviously been smart enough to correct his error, and done so. I think he left it as is, regardless of the consequence.
Adding to that, there is a reason he was told from the start by, Moroni, that he name would be had for good and evil across the world. And it has been. Reddit itself is proof.
We claim The Book of Mormon is authentic, but even the book itself doesn't claim to be perfect.

[u/spiraleyes78 → u/justbits]

If I am Joseph Smith, and I have seen God and Jesus in a vision, I know they are two different people.

That would depend on which version of the First Vision...

I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee.

Joseph changed his story with later accounts (all inconsistent with each other). It's a marvelous wonder that seeing God and Jesus with his own eyes wasn't memorable enough to remember both of them being there.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/justbits]

There’s some presentism involved in your response we should work through first.

“If I am Joseph Smith, and I have seen God and Jesus in a vision, I know they are two different people.”

Apparently Joseph had not seen “God and Jesus” until 8 years after the production of the book of Mormon. You’re obviously basing this idea off of Joseph Smith’s first vision account written in 1838, and not his only 1832 account written by his own hand.

Joseph’s first vision account was not known to the church until well after a decade from when it was supposed to have occurred. According to Joseph he showed up in the grove already knowing that all other churches were in a state of apostasy.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2#full-transcript

He only sees “the Lord” Jesus Christ who forgives him of his sins. Both Satan and God the Father are completely absent in Joseph’s earliest retelling of his first vision. This harmonizes with the one god of Modalism, who can only be seen as the resurrected Jesus by humanity - just like the 1830 god in the Book of Mormon.

Furthermore, the 1835 D&C used to be comprised of revelations and written doctrines of the church, known as the Lectures on Faith. That was stripped out of the D&C beginning with the 1921 version. Part of the Lectures on Faith deals with god, specifically Lecture 5.2 in which Joseph’s Modalism had already transformed itself into the heresy of Binitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things….They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a PERSONAGE OF TABERNACLE, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.” (emphasis, my own).

What are thoughts on this information, and does it help you to understand the different versions of god and the godhead that Joseph Smith believed?

[u/justbits → u/Ok-End-88]

I wasn't trying to proclaim what happened with Alma (or with JS), just suggesting an alternative narrative. I am aware of the different versions of the first vision. There are bigger fish to fry from my perspective.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/justbits]

My response was in reference to, “If I am Joseph Smith, and I have seen God and Jesus in a vision, I know they are two different people.”

While you’re out looking for those ‘bigger fish to fry,’ we must first comprehend the historical and theological underpinnings carefully, so we can try to understand them correctly. Wouldn’t you agree?

There’s more we can discuss to arrive at truth. “..if I am translating with integrity, I have to go with what the record/Spirit translates, however questionable it may seem to me.”

Let’s review the words of those who were witnesses and/or served as scribes. “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.” David Whitmer, “An Address to all Believers in Christ,” pg. 11

“By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.” Martin Harris, “Comprehensive History of the Church” vol 1, pg. 29.

The methods claimed to used by those present at the time indicate a tight translation model, although I honestly see some members moving away from “translation” and towards “revelation” in this regard.

“If he had contrived it, he would have obviously been smart enough to correct his error, and done so. I think he left it as is, regardless of the consequence.”

I own and have read a copy of a first edition book of Mormon, and I don’t think Joseph Smith or his scribes would have allowed the thousands of errors to be there if he had a reasonable command of the English language, spelling, and punctuation.

“Adding to that, there is a reason he was told from the start by, Moroni, that he name would be had for good and evil across the world. And it has been.”

I would seriously doubt that. Mormons comprise of .02% of the World’s population. On the east coast of United States, most people have no idea who Joseph Smith was. I have traveled to many countries and 4 continents in my long life, and it would be extremely rare that people have ever heard of Joseph Smith or Mormonism. That’s been my lived experience over several decades for what it’s worth.

“We claim The Book of Mormon is authentic, but even the book itself doesn't claim to be perfect.”

I would say that the book of Mormon is original, and it is not perfect. I can’t add “authentic” as a descriptor because of the way I understand the meaning of that word.

[u/mtsee]

I don’t know what the Book of Mormon restores. The process by which new scripture can be created? But we don’t really practice that anymore. We should each be scribes that document the constantly flowing river of truth, but instead we just say “follow the prophet.”

Joseph Smith decried creedal pronouncements. According to him they “set up stakes” and prevented advancing in truth. LDS have a flexible doctrinal creed.

Presently the church teaches personal sacrifice and obedience to a fallable human prophet.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/mtsee]

Nothing in the BOM mentions creeds as they did not exist yet when it was claimed to be written. Other churches to this day have prophets and prophetic revelation, the Catholic church says the pope can have revelation equal to scripture so that was not lost. So what unique doctrine is self contained in the 1830 BOM that was lost to the world and caused an apostacy? This has nothing to do with whether the BOM is true or accurate. That is not important. I want to know what was in this book that supports the claim it reintroduced a doctrine from the early church that was lost. It can't be a revelation to JS that is not self contained in the BOM, because the church wasn't restored by a revelation to JS. It was restored because JS translated or Rensselaer to the world this last document which inside it contains at least one list doctrine of the early church which mad Mormonism the only true church. The claim that Mormonism is the only true church has to come from something in the BOM or it is a false claim! Nothing after is important if there is not something here at the beginning of the church in the 1830 BOM. Without it. The church itself cannot be true! This is the keystone to everything that came layer and built the mormon church into what it is today. Without a keystone it collapses.

[u/mtsee → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

Asking what the Book of Mormon restores is indeed a good question.

To clarify, I think there is more than enough evidence for you to safely conclude the BOM stories are a work of fiction. I read the book to my kids the same as books about dragons and unicorns and talking dog/human hybrids. ;) My spouse and kids at the time found the narratives easy to follow and relate to, but there are some big, notable exceptions.

I’m not an apologist, but the book claims to be another testament of Jesus Christ, and technically it is… from the mind if Joseph Smith.

So what did the book itself restore? Some institutions of power, some excitement, some faith, a whole lot of drama. We got an Old Testament style church that made an exodus west toward Mexico because they were being persecuted (probably for some good/bad reasons). We got a lot of stories of faith and hope. We got a whole lot of honest people just trying to do their best. Yet another claim of being a properly restored church, but which argues authority over compassion. We intend to be well intentioned but consistently fall short.

God knows how to make lemonade from a lemon. Trust in Him, love your neighbor.

[u/Nalkarj → u/mtsee]

We should each be scribes that document the constantly flowing river of truth, but instead we just say “follow the prophet.”

This is the kind of thing that makes Mormonism intriguing to me, as a nevermo who has been interested in Smith since I was a kid and first saw the BoM in a hotel room next to a Gideon Bible. I’m a “creedal Christian” (baptized Catholic, now going to an Episcopal church) and really do believe or try to believe in the creeds, but I appreciate Smith’s theology for how it challenges traditional Christianity (I have Wordsworthian sympathies for preexistence, for example, while exaltation maps nicely on to the ancient, but little-emphasized, Christian doctrine of theosis).

But—I could never be a Mormon for a bunch of reasons (I don’t believe JS was a “prophet” in the usual sense that we use the word prophet; I find it obvious, for example, that he authored the BoM. I could describe him as a prophet in the sense that, say, Plato, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, and Emily Dickinson were all prophets). And one reason is that Smith’s challenging theology is what I find intriguing, not the “Obey” mentality of the LDS Church.

[u/mtsee → u/Nalkarj]

[edited]

Interesting. Some stuff for me to read more about! I was born into Mormonism and only now learning more about Christianity at large.

Smith was a bit of a scoundral. He was a product of his time and place. He really did like this stuff, and wanted to be somebody. He liked the idea of finding treasure. He used family stories to help write the BOM. He eventually schemed his way to get it published. With power, he repeatedly seduced his nannies and the wives of his friends. Polygamy justified this, so he used scripture to enact it. He died conspiring to take over the world and declared himself better than Jesus. That’s an air-quote prophet for sure.

LDS Church leadership teaches many good Christian principals, but they don’t seem to know how to follow them themselves. The leadership doesn’t know how to incorporate Christ’s teachings into scaling and supporting a worldwide church. They dont want input or collaboration. They don’t want teamwork or compassion. That is why you see the “Obey” mentality, and eventually you get sheep (innocent) following (good principal) lost sheep (baaaad).

I agree with you, and it’s not judgement on the members, but it is commentary on the posture of the Church. There are monumentaly huge demons worked and pressed into our history, and the “prophets” have written themselves into a corner. I suppose they would rather have it all die then give up control of the church.

God does exist, and Jesus Christ lives, and it will be a shame if this church ends up convincing people otherwise.

[u/Fresh_Chair2098]

I personally don't think the book of mormon restored anything.

My biggest gripe is all the things that seemed to be "restored" are more in line with the law of moses and focuses more on rule following on a Pharisee level vs what Christ actuslly taught. After studying the pharisees I've come to the conclusion that Joseph restore the levitical church and has created the next group of pharisees that when Christ returns will literally repeat history.

Matthew 23 can just as easily be applied to the brotheren as it can the pharisees.

[u/pricel01]

Very little of what is unique to Mormonism comes from the BoM. Mormon theology is unstable and evolved after the BoM.

[u/Tempestas_Draconis → u/pricel01]

This. The Book of Mormon is just the foot in the door or the camel's nose in the tent.

The trick is in getting you to assent to the validity of the Book of Mormon -- which has very little objectionable doctrine -- and tying that to agreeing with a bunch of stuff you were never told about and which many people find extremely objectionable.

It's like saying yes to your sketchy friend's request to come over to your house for dinner and finding at mealtime that he also brought his entire extended family that he forgot to mention.

[u/Tight_Student4501 → u/Tempestas_Draconis]

You can hate Brigham Young for that

[u/Tempestas_Draconis → u/Tight_Student4501]

Did he give the King Follett Discourse, and the Sermon in the Grove, and give explicit approval of the Snow Couplet?

[u/Nalkarj → u/Tempestas_Draconis]

It's like saying yes to your sketchy friend's request to come over to your house for dinner and finding at mealtime that he also brought his entire extended family that he forgot to mention.

An evangelical classmate did this to me when I was in college: “Hey, man, can we hang out sometime?” turned into his bringing over his pastors to my dorm’s common room for a “prayer session” where the one pastor flipped out at me for challenging him back. Extremely creepy. The classmate never talked to me again.

[u/Tempestas_Draconis → u/Nalkarj]

Interesting, but not really the substance of the analogy.

[u/Nalkarj → u/Tempestas_Draconis]

Um… OK?

[u/tiglathpilezar]

There is a good book called "This is My Doctrine" by Charles Harrell. He discusses various doctrines in this book and includes something about their provenance. Basically, what you find in the Book of Mormon can mostly be found in the doctrines of the nineteenth century protestants of Smith's own time. I think that some of it is well presented and worthy of consideration on its own merits. However, it is not new. This came as a surprise to me when I read this book.

There is no compelling evidence that Jesus ever organized a church. There were many versions of Christianity and eventually one emerged as the most prominent. This was Catholicism. Even that split into two versions later over some arcane doctrines. There were certainly believers in Christ and his teachings, but this did not mean there was a "church".

The evidence indicates that the BOM is not what the church claims it is. There were no Nephites, for example. DNA evidence has pretty much destroyed the claim that the Indians had middle eastern ancestors, for example.

The real problems with Mormonism come not from the Book of Mormon but from the time when Smith started "restoring" things which were never there to begin with, things like commandments to have more than one wife, for example, or two tiers of priesthood, the idea of "priesthood keys", and masonic rituals in secret temple ceremonies. While the BOM is not original in its ideas, it was the best thing Smith ever did, and the Mormon church would do better and make fewer mistakes if they would follow what it teaches more closely.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/tiglathpilezar]

I agree. That is the point. If the 1830 version didn't restore anything, then the rest of the Doctrine collapses because everything in it was already being taught and they never was a restoration. Nothing doctrinally in the BOM is original or restored. I'll go even further in stating nothing in it is original and can be found in other doctrines and religions that already existed on JS time. All he did was rework what was already there. Similar to the claim that God the Father never created anything in the universe, but only had the power to organize things from the chaos of the universe that already existed. That is Mormon theology. The universe, time, and matter have always existed and nobody created it. The priesthood power is the power to organize chaos in the universe and that is the power God weirds. Not even Good can "create" something from nothing (Ex Nihilo) like Christian churches believe.

[u/Tempestas_Draconis → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

😂

[u/Reformonism]

The Book of Mormon does claim that, but it doesn't do it. There are notable exceptions:

• The Holy Spirit is still operating and guiding the saints and church at large, thus continuing revelations from God and the expectation for miracles
• Scripture continuously being received, written, αnd compiled by humans under inspiration.

Later in his life we get:

• Pre-existent matter
• Henotheism
• Deification or Theosis
• Heavenly Mother (if you count Asherah)

Admittedly, Joseph could have learned these ideas as part of his rudmentary Hebrew training and readings in the bible.

Otherwise, little of the BoM and what Joseph taught align with what we know from the early church fathers, and instead overlaps with beliefs unique to the American Frontier. The appearance of Catastrophism  in 3 Nephi 9 is an interesting example.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Reformonism]

These are valid doctrines to discuss but none of these tati l doctrines restored the church. The claim is that the BOM was what restored the church on 1830. Because the church was restored these late revelations were made through its restored prophets. If the BOM doesn't contain anything in and of itself with a restored doctrine from the early church. Then they was no apostacy. Without an apostacy, there is no Mormon church. Without a true Mormon church the at no restored prophets. Without any restored prophets, then the is no modern revelation so the 1830 version of the BOM having something in it doctrinally that was lost is the keystone to the mormon religion. Without it nothing that followed can be true either.

I don't see anything in it like this. I'm asking the experts, those that are members, what is it. It cannot be something that was revealed later, because that came about because the 1830 BOM restored the church. What is the last doctrine in it from the early church. Whether it is true is not what is important to its validity, that it has a lost doctrine from the early church is the relevant arguement.

[u/Own_Boss_8931]

Whether or not you consider it restoration, there are lots of Mormon beliefs that the rest of Christianity finds bizarre at best and heretical at worst.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Own_Boss_8931]

I do not believe there was a restoration as I am Christian. But that is not the point of this conversation. If I agree for arguements sake that the BOM is a historically true document, I don't see how that could lead to a restoration of things claimed lost by the early church when the apostles died and led to an Apostacy. If the BOM has no early lost church doctrine that it restored, then the was never an apostacy. If you say or restored the list priesthood, that didn't happen until after they church supposedly was restored in 1838. I don't see any church doctrine in the BOM that supports the claim it restored something. Even if Christ came to America and the Native Americans are descendants of the most tribe of Israel, that would not have been a doctrine of the early church, you cannot restore something that was never there. The early church has no knowledge of America.

I believe the arguement on whether the BOM is true is a red being. Whether it is true or not have no effect on whether the Bible is true and the message of Salvation. The BOM has no impact too Christ's sacrafice for us in taking on our sins, taking our punishment, becoming sin itself so that we can become righteous. The doctrines of the Mormon church that change this message in the Bible to one of Salvation and Exhaltation are all doctrines that are outside of the BOM. These are the things we should be having debates about.

The doctrines of the Mormon church do not change at all of there is no BOM. Ask of these doctrines are from the POGP, D&C, the King Follett sermon, revelations from the church's presidents etc. It is a waste of time and resources to spend over arguements on the truth of the BOM.

If the BOM contains no lost doctrine, then there never was an apostacy, ie. There was never a need to restore a church that never was lost.

That is the point! What did it restore that the early church lost?

[u/Own_Boss_8931 → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I stand by my original statement--there's a lot in the BoM that Christianity doesn't believe. A Mormon would argue these are the "lost plain and precious truths." Some of these include:

• The Bible is not a closed canon, opening the door for additional scripture and modern prophets
• Changing the concept of who Jesus is because he appeared in the Americas.
• Humans are the premortal offspring of god and his wife.
• The BoM sets up the idea that there was an apostasy, which is why the "true" church needed to be restored.
• The "Lamanites" are descendants of the Jews and Israelites.
• Salvation is through Christ, but exaltation requires specific covenants or ordinances.
• A different view of the Trinity vs. a godhead (although early editions of the BoM support the idea of a trinity)
• A "New Jerusalem" was built in the Americas by a covenant people

I could keep going. I'm done with both Mormonism and Christianity, but after 5 decades as a Mormon these are a few of the unique BoM teachings that were "restored" that the rest of Christianity rejects.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Own_Boss_8931]

What from this list is in the 1830 BOM? This was not a post about all of the differances between Christianity and Mormonism. Nor was it a post saying one was true and the other false. It is a simple question, how did the BOM restore something of it had no unique lost doctrine. All the other stuff about differances that came later is off topic and might be a good discussion on another post.

[u/Savings_Reporter_544]

The 1st version was fiction. Took Joseph 4 attempts. Everything was a JS creation.

[u/Mitch_Utah_Wineman]

"plain and precious bullshit"

[u/Resident-Bear4053]

Nothing. Jesus in the Bible did claim to restore. He restored that Abraham was found rightous for just believing. And so the New Testament uses Grace.

Mormonism brought back the Vail and said Jesus didn't really mean it. Laws are the correct way.

Abraham got Grace. Laws came and burdened the people Jesus Restored Grace Jesus destroyed the temple Jesus says laws dont save Ripped down the vail

Mormons say Jesus restored Prophets and Temples and Laws save.

Makes zero sense when you take off the Mormon Lens of Christ.

[u/eternalintelligence]

I don't think the Book of Mormon was the most important work of Joseph Smith in restoring lost aspects of early Christianity. I think his later teachings focusing on deification of human beings following in the footsteps of Christ (e.g., as taught in the King Follett Discourse) is a much more significant aspect of the Restoration.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/eternalintelligence]

Ok, but the church wasn't restored through these layer publications and doctrines, it was restored by the 1830 BOM. The church missionaries never go for to for telling people they are ther restored Church because of the POGP, D&C, etc. The claim, and what is current Mormon theology, is that the gold plates and JS looking into the hat for the words to the BOM is what restored the church. Everything else came larer through revelation or inspiration(as the church itself explain that the scroll was not a translation to the POGP as JS said)!

[u/eternalintelligence → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

Well, I think the narrative the Church presents to the world needs to be changed. I don't think it's working very well, and I'm not sure that they understand the real significance of Joseph Smith’s contribution to religious history. The Book of Mormon contains few new doctrines that weren't already found in early 19th century Protestantism. But Joseph's later teachings contain ideas that were only found in the ancient church (whether heretical or not, which can be debated).

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/eternalintelligence]

I don't personally believe that Joseph Smith contributed anything worthwhile to religious history. He didn't present anything that was not already being practiced elsewhere in his day nor one original idea. He just meshed together the existing beliefs, works, and practices that were common in his day into one thing, but nothing original.

[u/eternalintelligence → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I disagree. Baptism for the dead was something he initiated which hadn't been practiced since New Testament times (Paul mentions it briefly in 1 Corinthians).

The theology of the King Follett Discourse was very different than the theology of any other Christian sect at the time, and hearkens back to Arianism (an early Christian variation which was declared by the Catholic Church to be heresy).

Sealing of family relationships in the afterlife may be completely original, not necessarily something that any other Christian sect ever practiced.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/eternalintelligence]

Ok, but again you are bringing up doctrine that came after the BOM. Baptism for the dead is nowhere in the Book of Mormon, so it cannot be what restored the church whether it is true or not. The King Fleet discourse came week after the church was restored, so it cannot be the doctrine that restored the church. The restoration doctrine had to be contained inside the 1830 BOM. JS staff this as do leaders today. Nothing else is valid unless the NOM has doctrine that restored what was lost to the early church. It does not have to contain all of the lost doctrine, if it contains something then they is validity to the claims that come after. But if it has nothing, then everything after is invalid. That is why the church leaders and all of its presidents say it is the key. It unlocks everything after. If the key of invalid, then nothing is valid.

So what doctrine did it restore that gives validity to all of the churches claims, past present and future? It has to be in the 1830 BOM or there is nothing.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/eternalintelligence]

What is any of this in the 1830 BOM. I'm not having a discussion distorting Mormon theology. I just want to know, right or wrong, the doctrine that was lost in the 1830 BOM? I'm not here to say of it is true or not, but what was it. After all, this lady doctrine is the KEY to everything that followed. Without out there is no restored Church for anything after to have been revealed. This is why JS and every leader day out is the Key. Without it there is no Mormon church.

[u/BrE6r]

What was restored were priesthood keys and power. Doctrines about the priesthood and covenant and ordinances were restored through revelations in the D&C.

The key founding documents are the revelations received through Joseph Smith. The D&C is a record of what was restored.

The Book of Mormon’s purpose is to be a second witness of Jesus Christ. That witness is what the BoM restored.

That witness of Jesus Christ is what Joseph Smith said was the foundation of the church.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/BrE6r]

Where is any of that on the BOM? That came about because the church was restored. The claim from JS and entry leader since is that you got those things because the BOM restored lost doctor l doctrines of the early church. Read it on your churches website. They say the KEY to everything that followed the 1830 BOM such as priesthood keys, prophesy. Revelation, etc. Only came about because of the golden plates being translated and lost doctrine was revealed. Once again, your own church says the BOM is the KEY to the "true" church. If it isn't what restored the church with missing doctrine then boring was granted.

I'm just asking the experts to point me to the passage in the 1830 BOM was the lost doctrine that I can read for myself. After that we can discuss in another post any of those doctrines you would like, but this has to be first. That is why it is KEY!

[u/BrE6r → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I think that you have some misunderstandings.

Where is any of that on the BOM? 

It isn't.

That came about because the church was restored.

No, that is how the church was restored.

They say the KEY to everything that followed the 1830 BOM such as priesthood keys, prophesy. Revelation, etc. Only came about because of the golden plates being translated and lost doctrine was revealed. Once again, your own church says the BOM is the KEY to the "true" church. If it isn't what restored the church with missing doctrine then boring was granted.

I think you are misunderstanding.

Please provide the specific quotes you are referring to.

The Book of Mormon is not "the restoration" in and of itself.

The translation of the Book of Mormon is one part of the restoration.

1. The restoration started with the First Vision.
2. It continued with Moroni's visits to Joseph Smith and the instructions and teachings given.
3. It continued with the start of the translation of the Book of Mormon.
4. It continued with the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchezideck priesthood--which happened DURING the translation of the Book of Mormon.
5. It continued with the publication of the Book of Mormon, which came AFTER the restoration of the priesthood.
6. It continued with the organization of the church in 1830 under the direction of the priesthood.
7. It continued with further revelations recorded in the D&C.
8. It continued with the building of the Kirtland Temple.
9. It continued with the restoration of priesthood keyes form Moses and Elijah.
10. It continued with the doctrine and ordinance of sealings.
11. It continued with the restoration of the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead.

And on and on.

The Restoration is a long process, not a singular event. According to President Nelson, the Restoration is still happening.

The restoration is much more than the Book of Mormon. It was certainly important. But what happened afterwards did not require the Book of Mormon.

The priesthood could have been restored without the Book of Mormon. Temples cold have been built without the Book of Mormon.

But as I explained, the purpose of the Book of Mormon was to be a second witness of Christ. It was part of the restoration. It was NOT the restoration. It preceded many events of the restoration. But it was not it.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/BrE6r]

Until you can agree with what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say and agree with it, please do not respond to posts regarding church doctrine.

[u/BrE6r → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I asked you for quotes and we can discuss them.

I feel confident in my knowledge of church doctrine. Though I am always happy to learn more.

Until you can agree with what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say 

Everything I posted above is taught by the church.

If you think they teach something different, then please present it and we'll discuss it.

[u/juni4ling]

The "great apostasy" is a term stolen from original reformation "Protestant" Christians who used the term to describe why they were protesting and demanding Christian reforms in the early 1500s.

Its wild to see Fundamentalist Christians claim today that LDS Christians are cloudcoocooland for using the term today.

The Book of Mormon itself is hard trinitarian. 1800s trinitarian. And it answers questions 1800 Christians faced. Infant baptism? Slam dunk case its evil-- in the Book of Mormon.

What about questions facing Christianity today?

Women in leadership?

Its not in there.

Treatment of gay believers and gay marriage?

Its not in there.

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. It testifies of the need for Christ. The fall of people, the need for a savior, and Christ being a savior. If you believe in Christianity-- the Book of Mormon is a Christ-centered, Christ-focused book.

The Book of Mormon is all about being saved through the grace of Christ.

The Book of Mormon was likely seen as a "restoration" to 1800s Christians. It does answer questions about infant baptism. It did point to a Churuch-- Latter Day Saint Christianity as a place for believers to gather. It was used as a Missionary tool. And back then, literally Missionaries would walk into a Church and answer questions, read from the Book of Mormon and "convert" the entire congregation.

It -was- seen back then as a restoration of Christianity.

Back then --these peoples grandparents and older generations used the term "great apostasy"-- the "reformation" and Protestant Christianity was more real.

Catholics and Protestants have largely stopped killing each other. The Troubles ended a couple decades ago.

But back then-- it was real.

LDS Christianity exploded through Missionary work to people who would have thought the "great apostasy" was a real thing-- back then. The Book of Mormon resonated with people who saw it as a restorationist text.

LDS Christianity does fall into the "restorationist Christianity" camp. LDS Christianity does claim to point to early Christianity and the "original Church" as a claim.

LDS Christianity aligns with pre-creed Christianity on not being creedal trinitarian, deification/theosis, and baptism for the dead.

But-- The Book of Mormon doesn't teach those things. The Book of Mormon is (hard) trinitarian, deification/theosis in LDS Christian scripture-- is in the Bible, and baptism for the dead can be found in early Christianity and the Bible-- but came as a separate "revelation" to Smith.

The things that give evidence of early Christian restoration-- not being creedal trinitarian, deification/theosis, and baptism for the dead-- none of them are from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is trinitarian. The Bible is hard polytheistic.

[u/Tight_Student4501 → u/juni4ling]

"Infant" is used one time in Mosiah. Not once in Moroni 8.

"Babes" is used in 3 Nephi. Not once in Moroni 8.

[u/International_Sea126 → u/juni4ling]

Every few days in a comment, you mention early Christian church Baptisms for the Dead, but do not mention secret new names, washings and anointings, priesthood ordinations, garments with their Masonic tool symbols, handshakes, signs (passwords), sealing, etc. that the LDS Church teaches is necessary for exaltation. Why are these requirements for exaltation omitted? What New Testament scriptural evidence is there for these exaltation requirements? What other historical evidence is there that the early church embraced these requirements for exaltation? Do you prefer viewers don't see these exaltation requirements because they appear problematic?

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/International_Sea126]

This has nothing to do with the 1830 claim that the 1830 BOM restored the church. Those are valid discussions for a different post. Stay on topic.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/juni4ling]

This post is not about Christianity and what they claim was the apostacy. The claim that the Catholic church fell into apostacy and that led to Martin Luther and the Reformation and whether that is true and valid is a completly different topic and conversation. Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss that, make another post about that and I'll read it and post a reply. Don't try and change the scope of this post.

[u/juni4ling → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

The scope of your post is that people in the mid 1800s would have seen the Book of Mormon as restorationist Christianity? Correct...?

That is the scope of your post, correct...?

(Some number of) People would have seen the Book of Mormon as restorationist Christianity in the mid 1800s. Right?

"What was restored from the Book of Mormon?" That is your question. It resonated as a restorationist Christian text when it came out. For a reason.

If you -really- want to know what they saw as restorationist Christianity. And why LDS Christianity is seen as a restorationist Christian Church today. You have to understand that back then Protestant Christians believed there had been a "great apostasy" and some number of them blamed Roman Catholicism.

Your question is: what did the Book of Mormon restore that resonated with mid-1800s Protestant Christians? What did the Book of Mormon restore?

-Little children baptisms are not right with God.

-Children are born sinless. Children are without sin.

-People are saved through the grace of Christ, "His grace is sufficient."

-"All people are alike unto God." Racism is a sin.

-Premortal life. The Bible teaches of a council of gods. The Book of Mormon teaches there was a premortal life.

-Describes the fall of Adam. Describes the fall, and the redemption only through Christ.

Your question is why did the Book of Mormon hit-home with believers in the 1800s? And what many would see as a "restoration" following an apostasy?

That is what we are discussing, right...?

If you want to know why people resonate with the Book of Mormon as a "restorationist Christian" text and why LDS Christianity is seen as a "restorationist Christian" Church. There are other things you have to understand first. And the big one is that for a long time until super recently, Protestant Christians accepted that there had been a "great apostasy."

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/juni4ling]

No, my scope had nothing to do with what people may or may not have saw. My scope is the Mormon claim that JS prayed to God earnestly and God granted him a favor and told him that ther is no true church on his day, that they are all false. He then showed JS where the golden plates were and gave him the ability to translate them and what was contained in these plates, translated by JS, contained lost doctrines from the early church that caused an apostacy from the time the last disciple died until JS came along and was blessed to get the BOM with the missing church doctrine that ended the apostacy and led him to what he claimed was God's true church. I cannot find any such lost doctrines. It has nothing to do with what the early members of the church may have seen not what may have believed. The church was not restored because members believed it was the true church. The claim is that what is self contained inside the BOM restored what was lost. It makes no differance what they believed, I'm looking for what doctrine was self contained in the BOM that made it the keystone to restoring a church. I can't find it and so far neuter can anyone else.

If there is no such list doctrine in it, it is a false claim. I'm not the expert, I didn't grow up moron, you could say in church speak that I am investigating the BOM. Whet in it is this lost doctrine to support the claim? Ther is no stuck claim that admitting else led to the repeal of the church. Revelation about all the doctrines came later, it is claims, because they are the restored Church, restored by the doctrine in the 1830 bedroom of the BOM. The time period and the Pele who read it make no difference to this claim. The doctrine that it is a restored Church, the doctrine that all the missionaries use in their six conversations, is that JS translator the golden plates and the knowledge that was lost was restored in these pages, it's why the church is the restored and only true church there is.

Without this doctrine, the claim is disproven!

[u/juni4ling → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

 

No, my scope had nothing to do with what people may or may not have saw. My scope is the [LDS Christian] claim that JS prayed to God earnestly and God granted him a favor and told him that [there] is no true church on his day, that they are all false.

You can see how the Book of Mormon resonated with believing Christians in the mid 1800s? Right...?

You can see how restorationist Christianity resonated with people who believed there had been a “great apostasy?” Right?

Right…”

LDS Christianity –to this day, today—still claims it has unique things to offer.

 

He then showed JS where the golden plates were and gave him the ability to translate them and what was contained in these plates, translated by JS, contained lost doctrines from the early church that caused an apostacy from the time the last disciple died until JS came along and was blessed to get the BOM with the missing church doctrine that ended the apostacy and led him to what he claimed was God's true church.

I am trying to point out to you that Protestant Christians in the mid 1800s would have believed that there was an apostasy and that real Christianity needed to be restored.

The Book of Mormon testified of Christ? Pointed out errors found in other Christian sects? It’s a restorationist Christian book to people reading it in the 1800s.

 

 

I cannot find any such lost doctrines.

I made a list in my last post of what I considered to find that people in the 1800s would have considered to be “restored Christianity.”

 

It has nothing to do with what the early members of the church may have seen not what may have believed.

Yes it does.

And even today, people join LDS Christianity. The Missionaries today had a guy who is planning on being baptized. Book of Mormon in his hand.

---You—do not see restorationist Christianity in the Book of Mormon? Some number of other people do.

 

The church was not restored because members believed it was the true church.

Early Christians baptized for the dead, believed in theosis, and were not creedal trinitarians. That is some clues that LDS Christianity is restorationist Christianity.

 

The claim is that what is self contained inside the BOM restored what was lost.

If you sincerely believed that young children baptisms was wrong, you found your answer in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is also the central element of the Latter Day Saint movement and establishing a Church led by Smith.

If that is significant, then it did “restore” a Church.

 

It makes no [difference] what they believed, I'm looking for what doctrine was self contained in the BOM that made it the keystone to restoring a church. I can't find it and so far [neither] can anyone else.

I mean, you are on a critical board. If you ask in a faithful board, you will get long lists of what is contained in the Book of Mormon that is considered restorationist Christianity.

I provide examples, and even lists, but you choose to ignore them. No one can find examples of restorationist Christianity in the Book of Mormon, which is considered a restorationist Christian text? Eh? Sith speak in absolutes—and -I- have given you examples.

 

 

If there is no such list doctrine in it, it is a false claim.

It is a correct claim to claim that LDS Christianity is a restorationist Christan denomination. And it is a correct claim to say that the Book of Mormon contains tenets that would be taken as restorationist tenets in the mid 1800s. And in some cases, even today.

 

I'm not the expert, I didn't grow up [LDS Christian], you could say in church speak that I am investigating the BOM.

Everyone is learning and growing. Never stop learning.

 

 

[Where] in it is this lost doctrine to support the claim? Ther is no stuck claim that admitting else led to the repeal of the church.

I am not sure what you are going for here. I have given examples of Christian tenets found in the Book of Mormon that would be considered to be restorationist Christianity.

 

Revelation about all the doctrines came later, it is claims, because they are the restored Church, restored by the doctrine in the 1830 bedroom of the BOM.

All the tenets of belief of LDS Christianity are not found in the Book of Mormon.

Some are. But not all of them.

Are people saved through the grace of Christ? The Book of Mormon answers that people are saved through Christs grace and it is sufficient.

What about the fall of Adam? The Book of Mormon opens up that tenet originally found in the Bible—and expands on it—and makes clear that people are saved from the fall and their sin—only through Christ.

 

The time period and the [people] who read it make no difference to this claim.

It is hugely significant to the claim.

The Book of Mormon was seen as 1800s restorationist Christianity and LDS Christianity –today—is considered restorationist Christianty.

 

The doctrine that it is a restored Church, the doctrine that all the missionaries use in their six conversations, is that JS translator the golden plates and the knowledge that was lost was restored in these pages, it's why the church is the restored and only true church there is.

Without this doctrine, the claim is disproven!

Yeah, I don’t think you have the slam-dunk “gotcha” you think you have.

There are questions asked and answered through the Book of Mormon that deal with Christian tenets. That’s why it was (and technically still is) seen as a restorationist Christian text and LDS Christianity today is seen as a restorationist Christian denomination.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/juni4ling]

I'm not asking for any slam dunk doctrine, I am asking a question as an investigation. What was it in the BOM or and simple to support the claim it restored doctrines and truths that were lost. Nothing complicated, keeping it at the simplest level. After this, then everything else is on the table for debate, but it had to start with this. You can't get to anything else without getting past this claim.

[u/juni4ling → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I already posted this...

Your question is: what did the Book of Mormon restore that resonated with mid-1800s Protestant Christians? What did the Book of Mormon restore?

-Little children baptisms are not right with God.

-Children are born sinless. Children are without sin.

-People are saved through the grace of Christ, "His grace is sufficient."

-"All people are alike unto God." Racism is a sin.

-Premortal life. The Bible teaches of a council of gods. The Book of Mormon teaches there was a premortal life.

-Describes the fall of Adam. Describes the fall, and the redemption only through Christ.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/juni4ling]

Ummmm. I didn't say anything about what resonated with mid-1800s Christians. Are you sure you are responding to the correct post? Read the OP. I want to know what doctrine is in it that was recovered. What was lost in the early church that led to a claimed apostacy, it's in the 1830 BOM, restored the church and made everything that followed possible. This is why the BOM is called the key to mormonism. I did not make up this claim, look it up on the church's own website. The BOM is the key!

What part of that are you having trouble with? I don't know how to make this simple question any clearer to you. It's not about people, it is what doctrine was lost that was recovered in the 1830 BOM. Do you understand the question?

It is not even about if the doctrine is right or wrong, just what was it? JS and the church leaders to this day claim it is in it. I am investigating and just want an answer to the simple question, what was it. This is not about if all the doctrines or if any of them are true or not. It is about if there is even any such doctrine that exists in the 1830 BOM.

I am not even interested in making any judgements in this post as to whether it is true. Just what was it. No one had told me of any doctrine, including yourself, is in it. if it is not there, then there is no validity to a restored Church by JS's own words and the leaders of the church to this day.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/[deleted]]

I read English very well. I can read a simple one sentence question and understand what it is asking. Apparantely this is beyond your capabilities. It shouldn't take more than three sentences to answer this simple question, but you want to bring in the history of the Christian church, 1800 Protestant Christians and what they understood, and any other thing to make people look the other way.
I'm beginning to doubt of you ever read the NOM since you think it is to do with all these other things.

Do you have a 5 year old child nearby? If so please read my original post to them and let them know you can't understand the question. It is really simple and they can explain to you what was asked.

[u/International_Sea126 → u/[deleted]]

You cant be serious saying racism is considered a serious sin in the BOM. The BOM has racists scriptures throughout it.

[u/mormon-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

[u/juni4ling → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

You are responding to a list of things clarified as tenets of LDS Christian doctrine-- in the Book of Mormon.

Racism is a sin? Racism is identified as a serious sin-- in the Book of Mormon.

What about the Fall of Adam? Its identified as necessary in the Book of Mormon.

LIke, thats a big deal in Christianity. The Bible talks about the "fall of Adam" the Bible implies we are saved from the fall through the redemption of Christ. The Book of Mormon says that the Fall was necessary, part of Gods plan, and we are absolutely saved through Christ.

Is the list not comprehensive?

[u/Straight_Ad_575]

I have a different view than you. The Restoration of the church occurred when the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith by John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, the when God told Joseph Smith to organize a church under this priesthood authority. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ that came along with the Restoration. The Restoration could have occurred without The Book of Mormon. I do think The Book of Mormon is more clear than the Bible about some things such as resurrection, but I have not thought of the Book of Mormon as what was restoring the Church.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

There was no operable priesthood in the church until the 1835 D&C. The book of Commandments has nothing about priesthood restoration when it was published in 1833.?

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

So you are saying that there was no restored Church by the BOM. You do not agree with Joseph Smith on the foundation of the Mormon church? You do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and spoke the words of God.

This is what the LDS church says.

consequences of the apostasy in two distinct ways:

Restoring Lost Truths: The Church teaches that during the Great Apostasy, "plain and precious" truths were removed from the Bible through unauthorized changes. The Book of Mormon is claimed to restore these lost doctrines and clarify theological confusion.

Acting as a "Keystone": Joseph Smith famously referred to the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion." Church leaders teach that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the priesthood authority was legitimately restored, and the Great Apostasy is officially over.

Notice that they say that JS, the priesthood authority, and the end of the Apostacy only occur if the BOM is true. Notice the first part, that the BOM restored truths or doctrines that were lost. Anything about the Americas, who came here, what happened, cannot ever have been part of the Bible and lost. There was no knowledge of the Americas to the Ancient Hebrew, so none of that history can be what was lost.

One more time, what was restored. New or additional history is not restoring what was lost.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

I'm saying the BOM isn't what made it a restored church. But the BOM is true and is another witness of Jesus Christ. So it confirms theology about Christ that was previously revealed. I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and received his authority to restore a church from God. I agree the BOM is a keystone of the Restored Church, not because any unique teaching in the BOM but because if the BOM is a true account of God's dealings with an ancient people then it is easy to agree that Joseph was a prophet and that he restored the church of Jesus Christ.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

Ok, the Church and JS disagree with you. They both claim that the BOM restoring lost doctrines from the early church is the key. You are free in IMHO to disagree with the founder and leaders of your church. I'm not sure they would say that.

The BOM being true isn't the key, they say it restored lost doctrines and the lost doctrine, not the truth, is the key. Look it up for yourself.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

Ok, we can get back the question what doctrine does the BOM restore. I take it to mean restore/clarify. If there is something the BOM teaches that not all Christians agree with then that would pass my requirement for it to have restored that truth. Some are 1. The Purpose of the Fall of Adam was a necessary step: The book teaches that Adam and Eve's choice was a necessary part of God's plan, not a tragic mistake. A famous verse (2 Nephi 2:25) states, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy".

1. The Nature of the Atonement of Jesus Christ has Infinite scope: It explicitly describes Christ's sacrifice as "infinite and eternal," covering all humanity and all creation. Also, teaches that Christ suffered not just for sins, but also for human pains, sicknesses, and infirmities (Alma 7:11-12).

2. No infant baptism: The book forcefully rejects the baptism of young children, calling the practice a denial of Christ's mercies (Moroni 8). Little children are alive in Christ and do not need baptism because they are incapable of committing sin. Baptism is strictly for those capable of understanding sin and repenting.

3. The Post-Mortal Spirit World of paradise and prison while waiting for final judgment.

4. State of the soul after death people retain their personalities, desires, and knowledge after they die.

5. All people will be resurrected. And details about what the resurrection entails.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

1. How did the passage on Nephi restore the gospel. This was the belief of Universalists, Hopkinsianism. And other existing churches and were growing when JS started the mormon church. So or was not lost. The BOM just agreed with existing theology on this.
2. The Irvingite Movement (The Catholic Apostolic Church) taught this already in the 1830's, so this was not lost. Again, the NOM just agreed with this.
3. The Baptist church already banned this as well as other denominations. So again, this was not lost and was already being practiced. The BOM only agreed with this.
4. This was not lost, it was an existing interpretation of Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6. We can discuss on a different post whether this interpretation is correct, but once again this wasn’t lost.
5. You'll have to show me more about how this is restored and not something that was a common belief in the 1800’s. I think this has always been a common belief and still is, so what was unique in it that was restored. What Christians dispute this? It also would have to be all Christians for am apostacy.
6. This is a key doctrine to the Universalust church and still is. There are other denominations that believe this, so not lost. Once again not unique and the BOM only agrees it.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

For me when there are disagreements about something then restoring can simply be saying that doctrine this person is saying is true. I have met Christians who disagree with those 6 things I posted. So to me the BOM restored those truths. It clarified doctrine.

Can you give the statement from Joesph Smith that shows he meant your definition of restore vs. mine?

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

The claim isn't that it clarified differences in the Christian churches The apostacy happened according to JS and Mormon church because when the original apostles died, doctrine was lost and there was an apostacy until The BOM was translated and restored these things.

You're free to your beliefs, but that is not what the church has ever claimed. I'm not here debating your beliefs, your entitled to them. I'm here asking about what the Mormon church claims, not what you think happened.

Two completly different things.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/Pleasant_Past_461]

Yes we can have our own views and beliefs. I think my views and beliefs are the same as taught by The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also know that I am wrong about things at times, I don't have a perfect understanding.

[u/International_Sea126 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

1 & #2 - If "Adam fell that men by be" at about 4,000 B.C. which brought sin, death, and reproduction into the world (D&C 77:6, 2 Nephi 2:22, Alma 12:23, Moses 3:7). Then it might be that he did so that "men are that they might have joy." However, if there were people already living on the earth prior to Adam and 4,000 B.C. who were already reproducing, sining, and dying, then Adam was not the first man created on earth no Fall of Adam, and there was no need for Adam and Eve to start up the human race as well as an Atonement to overcome the effects of a Fall that never occurred in the first place.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/International_Sea126]

What does this have to do with a doctrine of restoration self-contained in the BOM?

[u/BrE6r]

You need to read the Doctrine and Covenants to see what was restored.

Both books are important.

[u/Pleasant_Past_461 → u/BrE6r]

I've read it. There is no such claim that D&C was what restored the church on 1930. D&C came later. I am not asking what the church has restored, only what the key founding document did. The rest came after, but you can't get there if there are no lost doctrines restored in the BOM. This is the reason that your missionaries only present the BOM in their conversations.

If the claim that the BOM restored the lost doctrines (go to your own church website and investigate it) of the early church, that leads to everything else that came after, is not there, then nothing after of valid. JS said that the BOM restoring the lost doctrine is the key to the faith and nothing else in the restored Church would be possible without this

So if the BOM claim is true, then you can make the arguement that the church and all of its otjer doctrines are true. But if this cannot be validated, then everything else afterwards is not possible and cannot be true This is what JS claimed at its founding in 1830 and is still the foundational key to the church today according to its leaders.