Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

How can the BOM have the fulness of the gospel when it only seems to go as far as faith, repentence, baptism and gift of the holy ghost?

I think you answered your own question. The gospel is much simpler than most members seem to understand or believe. It is indeed as simple as faith, repentance, baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. It could be argued is really even simpler – belief in Jesus Christ (just the faith part). As with many other things, the gospel too often gets conflated with the church and it’s dogma and additional rules.

I think that in the time of JS there were several thoughts floating around

1) The true church/fullness of the gospel/priesthood authority had been removed from the earth.

2) The bible had been edited or doctored to remove important parts.

3) Further on the mistranslation of the bible idea, it was thought that clear and obvious OT prophecies for JC had been distorted or deleted.

I believe the BoM was thought to address these deficiencies in the following ways:

1) It describes a time when the church was on the earth and operating with authority.

2) The translation of the BoM led to JS praying and asking questions that led to the restoration of priesthood authority.

3) The BoM is presented as a restoration of the parts of the bible that had been removed. Remember that the BoM teaches mostly stuff that we take for granted as basic stuff but the BoM took a firm position on almost every major religious controversy and disagreement of the early 19th century.

4) The BoM is unapologetically Christian set in a pre-Christian time period. Thus the unequivocal primacy of JC throughout all recorded scripture is “restored”.

But even if none of that were true, I believe that as a church we have a history of changing word meanings and definitions when we need to. I feel a good example of this is how the “New and Everlasting Covenant” changed from referring to plural marriage and now refers primarily to monogamous temple marriage.

I think that in the time of JS there were several thoughts floating around

1) The true church/fullness of the gospel/priesthood authority had been removed from the earth.

2) The bible had been edited or doctored to remove important parts.

3) Further on the mistranslation of the bible idea, it was thought that clear and obvious OT prophecies for JC had been distorted or deleted.

I agree, and it appears Joseph was one of several (many?) trying to find or restore the church as described in the Bible. From my point of view, this is different from restoring “the Gospel” which I believe has always existed (at least in its simplest form of believing in Jesus Christ). I’m not sure how much the two were conflated in Joseph’s time, but in our time they’re regularly conflated by church members. My own nuance on this is that the church, as something separate from but related to the gospel, may have needed restoration at least for the (priesthood) authority. This is still tenuous for me because I don’t actually believe authority is needed but it really is all the church has to stand on.

I believe the BoM was thought to address these deficiencies in the following ways:

1) It describes a time when the church was on the earth and operating with authority.

2) The translation of the BoM led to JS praying and asking questions that led to the restoration of priesthood authority.

3) The BoM is presented as a restoration of the parts of the bible that had been removed. Remember that the BoM teaches mostly stuff that we take for granted as basic stuff but the BoM took a firm position on almost every major religious controversy and disagreement of the early 19th century.

4) The BoM is unapologetically Christian set in a pre-Christian time period. Thus the unequivocal primacy of JC throughout all recorded scripture is “restored”.

I also agree and it doesn’t matter whether the gold plates actually physically exist(ed), of if the BoM is pretty much purely inspiration, or if you believe it was made up. It is what it is and it supported Joseph’s mission.

That said, I think there are two points to make here:

1) In the temple we are instructed that both the Bible and the BoM contain the fullness of the gospel. I think Joseph also needed to believe that because he was using the Bible as his main reference for what the church should be and do. I think it’s important that modern members understand that as well. I’m sure there are more sacred writings than currently exist, and I’m sure the compilers of the Bible purposely left stuff out. Nonetheless, what we do have appears to be accurate. And, the as far as it’s translated correctly caveat seems to have little impact – modern scholars and translators seem to believe the KJV folks did a pretty good job.

2) I have been reading The Bible With and Without Jesus subtitled How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently. The authors are Jewish but their aim is not to discredit Christian thinking or interpretation – that’s why the title is and not or. I had once undertaken a study of Isaiah (yes of my own free will) and concluded that all of those “Messianic” prophecies were really talking about something else and therefore poo-pooed all talk of those prophecies. However, I have come to understand now that they could actually have had multiple meanings and they could be about both (or more) things – and not or. I also came to understand that Jesus quoted or directly referenced OT scripture way more than I thought. It’s OK for us to understand something differently now than what Joseph understood or what Paul understood or what Isaiah understood – and we can all be “right” and it can all be “true.”

But even if none of that were true, I believe that as a church we have a history of changing word meanings and definitions when we need to. I feel a good example of this is how the “New and Everlasting Covenant” changed from referring to plural marriage and now refers primarily to monogamous temple marriage.

Also agreed, and Joseph often used words like exaltation and salvation or ordination and setting apart interchangeably. Also, word meanings actually change over time.

Lastly, re the new and everlasting covenant. I think it is often misconstrued and misunderstood. Joseph Fielding Smith said the following (emphasis added):

What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read:

“Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.”

More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is “a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is “a” new and everlasting covenant.

Thus it would appear that the fulness of the gospel is not very complicated or “deep.”

This makes me wonder if this whole time we as a church have been looking beyond the mark. We seem to focus mostly on temple ordinances, marriage, missions, family history, food storage, etc. But these aren’t the focus of our scriptures.

I wonder if long-time members get bored after thousands of lessons about faith, repentance, etc and want the “deep doctrines” or “meat” of the gospel, when that’s really not the point.

One thing I wish was possible is to go back and read the Book of Mormon knowing nothing about it. If I could read it without ever having had a lesson on it or being told what doctrines it was supposed to teach, what things would stand out as the important points?

To answer my question, I think you could argue that the BOM contains the fulness of the gospel because it has all you need to achieve salvation. When we talk about salvation, it’s salvation from physical and spiritual death. Physical death is overcome universally by the resurrection. But spiritual death — meaning, life out of the presence of God – is something you overcome by showing faith, repentance, being baptized, and receiving the GoHG, enduring to the end and then, entering the celestial kingdom.

It doesn’t mean that you will get exhaltation — unlimited increase — that is only for people who get married in the temple. That is the highest level of salvation, which is not covered in the BOM. But the BOM contains the fulness of the gospel because gives us what we need to overcome spiritual death; ie, enter the celestial kingdom.

I guess if you believe the elitist exaltation idea. I’m still stuck on it not being mentioned in the BoM or by Jesus himself, and really only being mentioned in a rather controversial section of the D&C (at least the marriage/polygamy part of the kingdoms/exaltation idea). I’m in the camp of believing the first principles of the gospel are doctrine, but polygamy is not.

The “Good News” (Gospel) according to the words attributed to Jesus and based on his ministry appears to be quite simple:

God loves EVERYONE, and he will judge his children on the content of their hearts, not any other measure humans use as ways to judge and marginalize. That extends even to the most marginalized: the lepers, the “impure” (individually or collectively or genealogically), the “sinners”, the impaired, etc. That even includes “the enemies” and “apostates”. This will be accomplished because God will make it happen – and Jesus is the prototypical example, since even the outcast, reviled, murdered criminal he was considered to be was worthy of being a God.

We frame it in terms of faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost – but those things simply signal our acceptance of the Gospel / Good News.

The Book of Mormon contains all of that, even if (like the Bible) not every leader in it taught it to the same degree, so it contains the fullness of the Gospel.

On reviewing this, I can’t see the BoM containing the fulness of the gospel without some reliance on word play or mental gymnastics. I think JS thought, when translating and promoting the BoM that F, R Bap, GoHG was all there was. It was only when he was introduced to the concept of the temple and eternal progression that the statement “the BoM contains the fulness of the gospel” started showing leaks in the bow.

In other words, the subject statement about the BoM containing the fulness of the gospel is evidence of JS making statements that conflict with later revelation.