NOM

In his October 2011 Conference talk, "The Book of Mormon—a Book from God," Elder Tad R. Callister taught us:

But why is the Book of Mormon so essential if we already have the Bible to teach us about Jesus Christ? Have you ever wondered why there are so many Christian churches in the world today when they obtain their doctrines from essentially the same Bible? It is because they interpret the Bible differently. If they interpreted it the same, they would be the same church. This is not a condition the Lord desires, for the Apostle Paul declared that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). To help bring this oneness about, the Lord established a divine law of witnesses. Paul taught, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1).

He used a video presentation using line segments at different angles to represent different faiths' differing interpretations of the Bible like this:

He explained that with the Book of Mormon we now have two reference points (witnesses) and that only one line of interpreting can be drawn between the two books.

Only one interpretation of Christ’s doctrines survives the testimony of these two witnesses.

As represented in this picture:

If Elder Callister's analogy were truly compelling, one might wonder if a memo and his video might help Christopher Nemelka or the followers of James Strang accept the gospel truth as taught by Elder Callister that the SLC-based LDS Church is the only true one.

But, the problem is that Elder Callister's premise is all wrong. Just because he uses linear segments to represent interpretations in his analogy does not mean that this is the only way to represent interpretations or to best represent the reality of the situation. We could also use an analogy that represents interpretations of scripture with non-linear segments, as in this diagram:

And this diagram does a much better job of representing the reality of the situation. There are quite a number of sects with interpretations of the Bible and Book of Mormon that accept each as the true word of God, but differ quite a bit from the SLC-based LDS Church.

So what are your non-linear thoughts regarding Elder Callister's or the SLC-based LDS Church's teachings? Do you have a different way of representing this to better reflect the results of having these two witnesses, the Bible and the Book of Mormon?

Zack

The Strangite "Book of the Law" when used with the Bible really gives us a clear picture of what we need to do.

No... actually it was the new testament that was the second point that clarified what God wanted in the Old Testament.

No, actually it was the Quran that really clarified what God wanted from what he revealed in the Torah.

No, actually it was the scriptures written by Emanuel David (Elizabeth Smart Kidnapper) that give us the real second point.

Bottom line... Elder Callister's analogy is silly.

GoodBoy wrote:Bottom line... Elder Callister's analogy is silly.

Yeah, it's almost like he ignored reality to try to convince us of his preconceived notion. /s

GoodBoy wrote:The Strangite "Book of the Law" when used with the Bible really gives us a clear picture of what we need to do.

If you take Brother Callister's teachings one step deeper (always dangerous and seldom ventured in Mormonism) You could draw a line from the Bible though the Book of Mormon to The Book of the Law of the Lord, which would give the Strangites a much stronger structure than the CoJCoLDS' wimpy two-point witness structure.

Callister's model works just as well for any random nutcase who proclaims himself to be Jesus or a witness of Jesus.

But why is the Book of Mormon so essential if we already have the Bible to teach us about Jesus Christ? Have you ever wondered why there are so many Christian churches in the world today when they obtain their doctrines from essentially the same Bible? It is because they interpret the Bible differently. If they interpreted it the same, they would be the same church. This is not a condition the Lord desires, for the Apostle Paul declared that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). To help bring this oneness about, the Lord established a divine law of witnesses. Paul taught, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1).

I love how he assumes that all churches derive their doctrines solely from the Bible. There's the problem right there. A Catholic (representing about a third of all of Christianity) would laugh at the idea of doctrine being solely derived the bible and would point to councils and popes. Anglicans would point to the three legged stool of tradition, scripture, and reason. There's two right there representing about 135 times more Christians than LDS Christians.

So, his base assumption is a little.....off.

I'm ashamed to admit I used this flawed argument many times on my mission.

It's a flawed analogy to begin with, but it would be less flawed if doctrinally the Book of Mormon wasn't just an echo of the Bible. Given there are so few uniquely Mormon doctrines in it (forever families, temple work, word of wisdom, Godhead are separate and distinct beings, etc.), the Book of Mormon isn't really that apt an name. It's just a fanboy Bible really with some 18th century folklore mixed in written by someone with a strange obsession with war and battles who had a very difficult time describing them in anything approaching a realistic way.

The contention is self-defeating. The LDS Church via the Book of Mormon adds just one more splinter group, exacerbating what he sees as a problem. If Elder Callister wants to extoll the LDS Church, it is much better to focus on something positive the Church is doing rather than add this line of reasoning.

Tad Callister is missing a point that I suspect he simply cannot see from his position of leadership in the church. Neither the Book of Mormon nor the LDS church are particularly interesting or profound. Joseph Smith brought out some doctrine that answered a few policy questions of the 19th century like infant baptism. Even that wasn't answered with a really compelling argument. Subsequent prophets initially had some wider speculation but that has been consistently toned down since David O. McKay dragged the LDS church out of the 19th century. At no time did they give a compelling answer to the longest running questions of philosophy or religion like the Problem of Evil or demonstrate that they wielded God's power here on Earth.

Callister's underlying thesis depends on the Bible and Book of Mormon making more sense and being a compelling doctrinal argument together that inexorably leads towards the LDS truth claims. But it doesn't work that way at all. The doctrine of the Book of Mormon does not progress beyond baptism and following Jesus. The rest of the Christian world looks at this and agrees with this incredibly pedantic idea wondering why anyone would worry about having more scripture that reiterates the main ideas of the New Testament gospels.

LDS doctrine makes a bunch of exclusive claims of authority and ordinances then denounces all the other Christian faiths. LDS leaders like Callister retreat behind this tortured logic about the Book of Mormon and seem determined to avoid a substantive conversation about why we should pay any attention to them other than by their insular argument of authority.

There is a classic Twilight Zone episode wherein aliens from outer space came to Earth. They seemingly wanted to be friends with us. We took them at face value. They even handed out advertisements and booklets to us Earthlings. The booklets were titled To Serve Man, as a show of friendship and commitment.

Until that is, some bright-eyed Earthling citizen discovered that To Serve Man was a cookbook!

Elder Callister would insist that the aliens were A-Okay because they had the one true cookbook.

And this guy Callister is a leader in a church?

Is that the best he's got?

I wonder what he does for a day job?

I hope he's not an airline pilot, or anything that requires intelligence.

The guy irritates me. I think he looks like Adolf Hitler.