- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree completely that the central teaching of the BofM is Jesus as the Messiah. No doubt about that. A key difference is that the BoM is a lot more explicit in its Christology pre-incarnation than the Old Testament is. SamBee wrote:
A key difference is that the BoM is a lot more explicit in its Christology pre-incarnation than the Old Testament is.
Yes, The BoM inserts Christ and Christianity explicitely into pre-christian times. This is both a strength and a weakness. As a weakness it is an anacronism. Yet as a strength, if God were the same yesterday, today, and forever and the role of Jesus was to be central to His plan, one might expect some greater mentions, prophecies, and emphasis on this event.
rrosskopf wrote:
The eruption of Apoyeque in the 1st century AD was one of the largest known volcanic eruptions, and was likely responsible for lightnings, thunderings, thick darkness, sunken cities and burned cities. A large part of the area is now under water because of that eruption. The only comparable eruption in modern history is that of Krakatoa in 1883, which also caused three days of darkness in the Indian ocean.
The BoM amplifies the Christology of the bible. The bible says that the sky was dark for 3 hours, the BoM amplifies that to 3 days. The bible says that the ground shook, the BoM amplifies that to entire cities being destroyed by natural disasters. Both books state that there were resurections at this momnet. One thing that 19th century Christians would hope for to appear in the bible is a direct reference to the trinity. This the BoM supplies in spades.
Old Timer wrote:
I agree completely that the central teaching of the BofM is Jesus as the Messiah. No doubt about that.
Agreed!SilentDawning wrote:I have a really hard time believing it contains “the fulness of the gospel” because a lot of ordinances mentioned only in D&C are missing, such as temple marriage.
The fulness of the gospel, as understood by the Nephites, is contained in the Book of Mormon. “Fulness” is not to be understood as a detailed list of all doctrines and ordinances, but rather as containing the four or five major concepts; if the gospel were missing any one of these, it would not lead to salvation. The first concept is faith. God asks us to prove him, to gaze upon the brass serpent, to enter Jerusalem and confront Laban without knowing what is going to happen, to take our tents into the desert. Without faith, there is no salvation in the fullest sense. The second concept is repentance. Faith without repentance is ultimately futile. John the Baptist and the apostles of Jesus Christ taught repentance and baptism; this was their primary message. The third concept is that of making a covenant with God. We call that covenant baptism, and we renew that covenant with the sacrament of the Lord’ supper. One must make a covenant – commit – to keeping the commandments of God or repentance and faith are in vain. The forth concept is receiving the Holy Ghost. It is the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us and changes our very nature. If we harden our hearts against it, then the faith, repentance and covenants were all in vain. All four are necessary, and one might add a fifth; to persevere in all four of these concepts so long as one draws breath – to endure to the end. This is the fulness of the gospel in it’s simplicity. And yes, it is in the Book of Mormon. As simple as it sounds, one might suspect that many churches teach the same doctrines, but that is not the case. They may teach one or two, but the fulness of the gospel was lost, and strange doctrines were added in. The churches of Joseph Smith’s day shot beyond the mark.Was the concept of Eve consciously kicking off the Fall unique to the BoM? nibbler wrote:
Was the concept of Eve consciously kicking off the Fall unique to the BoM?
In many Christian sects she gets the blame – hence women’s birth pains, a form of punishment, allegedly.
However, the idea that they did it consciously is very unusual.
According to a rabbinical commentary, the first real sin was not taking the fruit but lying about it after, because then they knew good from evil. The first truly evil act in the Bible though is when Cain murders.
rrosskopf wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:I have a really hard time believing it contains “the fulness of the gospel” because a lot of ordinances mentioned only in D&C are missing, such as temple marriage.
The fulness of the gospel, as understood by the Nephites, is contained in the Book of Mormon. “Fulness” is not to be understood as a detailed list of all doctrines and ordinances, but rather as containing the four or five major concepts; if the gospel were missing any one of these, it would not lead to salvation.
I think you could argue this successfully. If you consider salvation life with God, then yes, the first four principles and enduring to the end would get you there….but then we have the highest level of salvation which is eternal progression. And you need to have entered into the celestial marriage covenant to achieve this. Therefore, the term “fullness” in a book written for our day doesn’t cut it for me. I think to say it contains principles that lead to salvation would be clearer, but fullness, in my view is a misnomer.
SilentDawning wrote:
If you consider salvation life with God, then yes, the first four principles and enduring to the end would get you there….but then we have the highest level of salvation which is eternal progression. And you need to have entered into the celestial marriage covenant to achieve this.
There will be single people in the Celestial kingdom. They will have received salvation by following the principles taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I see no indication that the Nephites, nor the Jews, had much if any understanding of Celestial Marriage. Jesus may have taught it, but only privately to a select few. No one has ever included this doctrine as part of the “good news”, as far as I am aware. The “good news” is that we can repent and be forgiven and that we can become “saints”, sanctified by the spirit of the Holy Ghost and sealed to rise with the saints at the last day.rrosskopf wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
If you consider salvation life with God, then yes, the first four principles and enduring to the end would get you there….but then we have the highest level of salvation which is eternal progression. And you need to have entered into the celestial marriage covenant to achieve this.
There will be single people in the Celestial kingdom. They will have received salvation by following the principles taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I see no indication that the Nephites, nor the Jews, had much if any understanding of Celestial Marriage. Jesus may have taught it, but only privately to a select few. No one has ever included this doctrine as part of the “good news”, as far as I am aware. The “good news” is that we can repent and be forgiven and that we can become “saints”, sanctified by the spirit of the Holy Ghost and sealed to rise with the saints at the last day.
True, but to call a lesser position in the salvation levels described in the BoM a “fullness” is misleading….and being alone, without a partner, and unable to progress eternally has been considered uncomfortable for many…so I guess I still object to the term “fullness” used when describing the BoM. I will say, the BoM is a lot simpler than the salvation described in the D&C, which tends to create a lot of ‘God will have to work that out’ statements from people when they talk about exceptions and odd situations…particularly related to celestial marriage.
Perhaps “fullness” is hyperbole. Like saying the Most Awesome Gospel Ever! Fullness is a subjective term, except in cases where exact measurements can be made. It always will be. I am fine with using it as a general statement about a few core pillars, for example – but those core pillars are taught in the Bibke, as well. I would agree that the core concepts we generally associate with the Gospel (faith in Jesus as the Savior and Redeemer, repentance, baptism, the Holy Guost, enduring to the end) are taught more clearly in the BofM than in the Bible, but exaltation isn’t taught clearly, if at all, in the BofM. It is taught in the Bible – as one of the core themes, actually.
I believe acceptance of the BofM is to enable people to read the Bible with new eyes, so to speak, and see things that the Bible teaches that have not been recognized in traditional Christian theology – particularly those that deal with the individuality of God, the Father, and God, the Son, and our relationship to them. Those things are taught more directly in the Bible than in the BofM – and the BofM says explicitly one of its core purposes is to lead people to beleive the Bible (as opposed to what is taught about the Bible).
“Another” testimony of Jesus Christ presupposes an existing testimony of Jesus Christ – and what I just described is the way Joseph Smith and the early saints generally used the BofM. It was the cornerstone of their religion and testimonies of The Reatoration, but it wasn’t the cornerstone of their Gospel study. That was the Bible.
Old Timer wrote:
Fullness is a subjective term, except in cases where exact measurements can be made. It always will be. I am fine with using it as a general statement about a few core pillars, for example – but those core pillars are taught in the Bibke, as well.I would agree that the core concepts we generally associate with the Gospel (faith in Jesus as the Savior and Redeemer, repentance, baptism, the Holy Guost, enduring to the end) are taught more clearly in the BofM than in the Bible, but exaltation isn’t taught clearly, if at all, in the BofM. It is taught in the Bible – as one of the core themes, actually.
I believe acceptance of the BofM is to enable people to read the Bible with new eyes, so to speak, and see things that the Bible teaches that have not been recognized in traditional Christian theology – particularly those that deal with the individuality of God, the Father, and God, the Son, and our relationship to them. Those things are taught more directly in the Bible than in the BofM – and the BofM says explicitly one of its core purposes is to lead people to beleive the Bible (as opposed to what is taught about the Bible).
“Another” testimony of Jesus Christ presupposes an existing testimony of Jesus Christ – and what I just described is the way Joseph Smith and the early saints generally used the BofM. It was the cornerstone of their religion and testimonies of The Reatoration, but it wasn’t the cornerstone of their Gospel study. That was the Bible.
I have a similar view of fullness. I believe in the temple both the BoM and the Bible are described as containing the fullness of the gospel. Since my own view is that the gospel is very simple (reiterated again by an apostle just a couple days ago) it seems plausible that both books – and others – may contain the fullness of the gospel.
I also particularly like your comment about “another testimony” as presupposing there is at least one more. I am preparing a talk for later this month which includes part of my own story and really coming to know the Savior through the New Testament. There’s nothing wrong with the BoM as a witness of Christ – I do believe it can and does bring people closer to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. But I also believe that instead of reading mostly what other people (the BoM writers) said about a Messiah they never knew, we can gain a much better knowledge of Him by reading the “eyewitness” accounts of what he said and did (quotation marks purposeful). Much of the BoM is akin to what any person living today could say about Christ, not knowing Him personally. Frankly if I had not read the four gospels as part of rebuilding my faith I may still not be an active member today. If you don’t mind Curt, I’d like to use your thought (I’ll paraphrase/use my own words and will likely expand the idea).
As a side note, there are very few recorded instances of Joseph quoting from the BoM. It was much harder in those days because it was not divided chapter and verse the way we know it. Joseph did however frequently teach concepts from the BoM. At the same time it is clear he was intimately familiar with the Bible and much of his theology is directly Biblical.
DarkJedi wrote:
Frankly if I had not read the four gospels as part of rebuilding my faith I may still not be an active member today.
This is where I’m at currrently in my own journey. I’m focusing on studying the New Testament for now, and it’s amazing how much better things fall into place with a focus on the simple, fundamental teachings of Christ.
Quote:The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.
–Joseph Smith
I think the “fullness of the gospel” is really just the core message- the message of God’s love shown through Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection.
As for other teachings in the Book of Mormon, I think there is also a significant message about social issues like wealth inequality.
Arrakeen wrote:
I think the “fullness of the gospel” is really just the core message- the message of God’s love shown through Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection.
Amen!
May I point out that technically, “fullness” just means satisfyingly full? When one is full, they are no longer hungry, but they could still eat more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.