Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by SilentDawning »

One thing I've often wondered is how the Book of Mormon contains the "fulness of the gospel" when it doesn't talk about eternal marriage or temple covenants. As we know:
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.(D&C 131)
Therefore, you can't have the fulness of salvation (highest level of celestial kingdom) without be married in the temple. But the Book of Mormon is pretty silent on the temple, yet JS said that the 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?
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by DarkJedi »

SilentDawning wrote: 23 Jul 2021, 14:53 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.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
Arrakeen
Posts: 266
Joined: 25 Aug 2018, 18:49

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by Arrakeen »

For fun, here’s how Wikipedia describes the gospel:
In Christianity, the gospel, or the Good News, is the news of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15).

This message is expounded upon as a narrative in the four canonical gospels, and as theology in many of the New Testament epistles. As theology it is expanded, and related to the death by crucifixion of Jesus. It perceives this as saving acts of God due to the work of Jesus on the cross and Jesus' resurrection from the dead which bring reconciliation between people and God.
By this definition, the gospel is simply the message that Jesus redeemed mankind from sin and death.

Here’s the definition on the Church website:
The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:4).

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment (see 3 Nephi 27:16).
In our church we seem to use two definitions at once. There’s the version that is just faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost. This is what is taught in the Book of Mormon. Then there’s the version of the gospel being the whole plan of salvation and all of the associated ordinances. Many of these like sealings and endowments are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon and are largely absent from scripture as a whole.
Roy
Posts: 7183
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by Roy »

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.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
Roy
Posts: 7183
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by Roy »

Roy wrote: 25 Jul 2021, 15:55 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 am thinking a little more about these concepts of 1) making additions or changes to something that was previously described as sufficient/perfect and 2) sometimes altering word definitions in order to make it work.

In the modern church there is some tension between the church being perfect, a restoration and returning to the church as it was originally constituted by JC in the meridian of time, and also the seemingly contradictory concept that we believe in continuing revelation through the living prophet and that the church will grow and change and adapt.

In the concept of the "continuing restoration" (which I love) both of these previous ideas gain a rough compromise. God was not done "restoring" the church through JS and indeed this work continues to this day, through us.

I'm not sure that this meets the definition of restoration as envisioned by JS and other early LDS. Surely we do not think that whatever innovations we might come up with are returning us ever more closely to the original church of JC. I do not think it makes sense for example that removing sexist language from the temple endowment ceremony brings us closer to the original and that the sexism must have been a corrupted version (introduced under BY?).

So "restoration" as we are using the term in this particular context must mean something altogether different. We are combining the old with the new - just like religions have done before us for thousands of years.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by DarkJedi »

Roy wrote: 25 Jul 2021, 15:55 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.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by DarkJedi »

I was doing some light research on the subject and came across this quote by ETB:
The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation.
Thus it would appear that the fulness of the gospel is not very complicated or "deep."
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
Arrakeen
Posts: 266
Joined: 25 Aug 2018, 18:49

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by Arrakeen »

DarkJedi wrote: 26 Jul 2021, 15:10 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?
User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7602
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by SilentDawning »

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.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

"The wise man has the power" -- adapted from What A Fool Believes -- The Doobie Brothers
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 8050
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel?

Post by DarkJedi »

SilentDawning wrote: 27 Jul 2021, 20:35 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.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction
Post Reply