[AlexMormon]

Quote:

I tend to agree that every action has its reason. Where I think we get into trouble in the church is assuming that everything done in the church has a divine reason. (A good example of this is where I read an early 20th century church Apostle [1906?] say that there is no reason why women couldn’t pass the sacrament. When I told this to my mom she responded, “But what then would the deacons do?” So it is possible that the reason deacons pass the sacrament in the church is tradition calcified into policy and the desire to give the Aaronic priesthood holders a prominent and important job.) If I were to speculate, I might say that the words “as the Bible does” were removed because of the Article of Faith where it says that the Bible may not be translated correctly. Another possible reason might be a concern that if we go about saying that the Bible already contained the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” then that might de-emphasize the need of the BOM and the restoration to restore the “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” How do you restore what was already present in its fulness?

I agree. But it looks bit strange when one doctrine says “yes” and another “no”.

[AlexMormon]

Old-Timer wrote:

The people who did it made a mistake in doing it. It’s not more complicated than that for me.

Fwiw, there are at least two places in the BoM that state, explicitly one of its primary purposes as being to convince people to believe the Bible – not to believe IN the Bible, but actually to believe the Bible. Those who think the Bible doesn’t contain the fulness of the Gospel while the BoM does simply misunderstand what the fulness of the Gospel means – and that’s true no matter what position they hold in the Church.

So sad that people made mistakes which change the meaning. Especially in the books approved by the Church… 😥

[AlexMormon]

wayfarer wrote:

First, welcome to StayLDS. Please post a message in introductions to let us know your story and your faith journey. It helps us get to know you so we can help each other.

I would not impute any meaning from the change to the introduction to the Book of Mormon. The bible and the book of mormon work hand in hand as basic narrative from which we draw stories and lessons to strengthen our faith.

The book of Mormon is said to contain the fulness of the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. As such, there is clearly a simple message that constitutes ‘fulness’ — as reflect in the last chapters of 2 Nephi, and in 3 Nephi 11, the gospel consists of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and very little more. It is this clarity that sets the book of Mormon apart.

As we get tripped up in our faith crisis among all the weird doctrines passed off as Mormonism, it’s really helpful to get back to the basics.

That, to me, is the beauty of the book of Mormon.

Thanks for your answer. I live in Russia. I joined the LDS Church in 1997.

I also believe the Book of Mormon and love it. But my question was about the Bible and changing the Introduction to the BofM. I proceed from the premise that every action has its reason. So I just would like to know what was the reason to remove certain words from the Intro.

[AlexMormon]

Hi everybody! I have a question. In the Intro to the BofM (1989 ed.) it says: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as the Bible does, the fulness of the everlasting gospel”. In the new edition of the BofM the editors removed the words “as the Bible does”. Does it mean the Church does not believe any more the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel?

PS Sorry for my English :geek:

[Author]

Posts