The question might be raised what
what would it have meant in the 19th century
to say the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion.
We in our day would be quick to point out the place of the arch,
the Keystone in a Roman arch.
and that's good, it holds the whole structure together
but practically speaking what does that mean for us? I think it means
the Book of Mormon is a kind of take-it-or-leave-it enterprise meaning it's a do-or-die enterprise.
I think that statement is affirming
or confirming the idea that if the book isn't true,
if it's a fabrication or a part of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination as someone once said,
then nothing else is going to hold together.
Now there are all kinds of people in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints
they're people who don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon
and they ask "is there a place for me" I say "absolutely it's a large umbrella."
The Church of Jesus Christ is made up of all kinds of people. Each of us struggle with some facet of the faith.
in some way.
For me
it doesn't hold togethe if I see the Book of Mormon as doctrinal fiction.
It doesn't hold together for me if I see the Book of Mormon as a 19th century product
because it's apart from me of a larger package.
So I once heard Elder Bruce R McConkie say to a group
of young missionaries in the mission home as it was called then.
He quoted that passage about the Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion
and he said:
"If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was a prophet.
If Joseph Smith was a prophet then Peter, James and John came and restored priesthood.
And if Peter James and John restored
and brought priesthood then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is divinely led
and the Living Church is divinely led today.
Now that seemed like a long string of ideas to me
but I'm
naive enough to believe that that's exactly what we're talking about.
I think you can't have a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints today that outgrows the Book of Mormon.
Or moves beyond the Book of Mormon,
or begins to talk lightly and cavalierly about well we've actually moved beyond the the simple
early Christian theology of the Book of Mormon, baloney.
If we've moved beyond the Book of Mormon we moved out of the realm of what the restoration was all about.
Because what was the restoration? It was the restoration of pure Christianity.
Now
when Joseph Smith the Prophet said that
the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimonies of the apostles and prophets
concerning Jesus Christ that he died, was buried, rose again the third day and ascended into heaven
and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.
I think he's saying that
as vital and important and interesting as the doctrines of three degrees of glory or premortal existence
or temple work even, as vital as those are and significant as they are.
they take a back seat to the redemption that is in Christ.
and the one thing the Book of Mormon teaches better than anything in our possession
older New Testament,
Doctrine Covenants, Pearl of Great Price or the prophets inspired translation of the Bible.
It teaches redemption in Christ, and you don't outgrow that.
And so when I hear people saying well actually Joseph Smith
progressed later by the time of King Follett, to a much a much higher level of theology.
I want to say baloney, baloney.
He lived in perfect balance.
He could talk about the fundamentals of Christianity
and he could talk about man becoming as God in the same breath
and we ought to be able to do the same today.
That is not a contradiction, it's a beautiful, beautiful synthesis in my mind, and so
it is an all-or-nothing with the Book of Mormon in terms of the package, it is a package deal.
And because the Book of Mormon represents,
following the first vision represents the beginning of the revelation of God and Christ, to us.
To ever suppose that we become
able to move beyond it or talk about it
as kind of a distant second cousin that we wouldn't want to sort of sweep under the rug
because we've moved on to more progressive ways of thinking,
is to me spiritually perilous.