Is The God Of The Bom More Merciful That The God Of The Bible?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As another thread continues in another forum, I would like to focus on our claim that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the Gospel in concert with the Bible. That indeed many of the “plain and precious parts” of the Bible have indeed been removed. Assuming this claim to be true; the BoM reveals to us a more loving and just God.

Case(s) in point,

The teaching on Charity in Moroni 7, followed with the teaching that children are redeemed from the fall without exception.

The teaching that all will be given the chance at salvation and that none will be turned away who seek it.

2 Nephi 26: 33…

33For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

As the teachings of foreordination continues to gain steam, this being that God hath foreordained all who would receive salvation from the beginning, and that Christ must “draw” you to himself, and that we are not free to choose.

This of course in conflict with the above listed scripture 2 Nephi 26: 33; In addition at odds with this one as well.

2 Nephi 10: 23-24…

23Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

24Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

This in light of another teaching that is taking hold within the EV Church that; “God is not obligated to give everyone a chance for salvation”?

Is our complete teaching found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (as well as other Latter-day Scripture) reveal a more just and loving God?

If all men are judged by the same standard, then are not all men entitled to hear the gospel and God obligated to give all that chance?

By design Paul taught that in this life “we see through a glass darkly”, why would God give unto this handicap and not provide a way for all to know him perfectly before damning us for rejecting him?

[HeatherAnn]

...This in light of another teaching that is taking hold within the EV Church that; “God is not obligated to give everyone a chance for salvation”?

Is our complete teaching found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (as well as other Latter-day Scripture) reveal a more just and loving God?

If all men are judged by the same standard, then are not all men entitled to hear the gospel and God obligated to give all that chance?

By design Paul taught that in this life “we see through a glass darkly”, why would God give unto this handicap and not provide a way for all to know him perfectly before damning us for rejecting him?

Yes, I think the way God is portrayed in the BOM is more loving & merciful than the one in the bible.

We are so lucky to have another perspective... Of course, we're not better than those without it, we just have an extra help in spiritual development, if we use it.

Gospel means "good news", right? "Good" is of God - uplifting. "News" is a new perspective of truth.

So, the gospel (truth) is not limited to encompassed by LDS doctrine alone. It is as Joseph Smith said,

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

We are all entitled to hear the gospel (truth), as much as we are open to it.

That last part you wrote is something I might never really understand.

God is paradoxical... gave us imperfection & challenged us to be perfect.

In seeking spiritual evidence, we don't find it, but when not seeking it, we find it.

We want to receive truth, yet we - "can't handle the truth!" - and usually prefer a good illusion instead.

Illusions can be harmful or edifying... but we're sometimes too illusioned to know the difference!

[Jeff K.]

I believe the perspectives are unique, less interaction with other nations/cultures (or at least written of and authored, who knows what Mormon and Moroni censored) and a perspective of God's attitude tied with a stronger knowledge of the atonement makes God appear more merciful in the Book of Mormon.

If one were to look at the key facts, ie the resurrection and the atonement, one would cut through the lenses of the writers and see specifically that God is equally merciful.

[rameumptom]

Let's see, God in the Book of Mormon nearly wiped out the Nephites in the book of Omni. He nearly wiped them out in the Book of Helaman, when 1/2 the Nephite lands were taken by the Lamanites. He nearly wiped them out at Christ's crucifixion. And he wiped them out ca 385 AD. And then among the Jaredites, he nearly wiped them out on several occasions, before finally dropping the ax a final time in Ether's life.

God doesn't seem any nicer than he does in the Old Testament. It all depends on which parts we focus upon. We see God's mercy in the OT, as well as his anger. We see the same things in the New Testament and Book of Mormon, as well.

[cksalmon]

As the teachings of foreordination continues to gain steam, this being that God hath foreordained all who would receive salvation from the beginning, and that Christ must “draw” you to himself, and that we are not free to choose.

Well, actually, what Christ said was that the Father must draw the sinner to himself. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (Joh 6:44 ESV). Yes, there is causation and purpose here. If the Father draws just everyone to himself equally and without any distinction, there is little point to Christ's pointing the distinction out. Now, bear in mind, that this saying ("No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him") is an explication of what Christ said earlier, "[36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. [37] All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (Joh 6:36-37 ESV).

The reason that Jesus can say of some that "you have seen me and yet do not believe" is given in what follows:

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out"

and, fundamentally:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

This of course in conflict with the above listed scripture 2 Nephi 26: 33

As you're the one who posits the conflict, I guess I can do no less than grant that there is one.

Also, you said in another thread: "True but James Dodson was racked over the coals for speaking at many LDS functions." I haven't been able to find any reference to such events or happenings. Will you elaborate?

c

[BCSpace]

It's the same God whether OT, NT, or BoM. I find it ridiculous to differentiate between them in this fashion and there is no basis for it other than an irrational and unfounded hope that God will be more likley to overlook or excuse sins today.

[Questing Beast]

The BoM God is an "enlightened", 19th century Deity. The OT God is a pagan claim jumper, ministering to a small, outnumbered, surrounded population of hillmen, barely beyond nomadism.

That the OT God could morph into a totally different being just because he was transported to America is inconceivable. "God is an unchangeable being" makes no sense out of the dichotomy: in the "old world" God continues to behave like the anger-filled avenger of wrongs against his holy name, etc. While in the "new world" God becomes this being of mercy, tolerance and patience, etc. This is one of the evidences of the BoM's origins being modern and not ancient.

And what exactly are these "plain and precious truths" that have been cut out of the Bible? Anytime we compare our Bibles with the Dead Sea Scrolls we see that they are the same. There are not lacunae in our modern texts....

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Also, you said in another thread: "True but James Dodson was racked over the coals for speaking at many LDS functions." I haven't been able to find any reference to such events or happenings. Will you elaborate?

c

Just google "James Dobson speaks to Mormons".

[rameumptom]

The BoM God is an "enlightened", 19th century Deity. The OT God is a pagan claim jumper, ministering to a small, outnumbered, surrounded population of hillmen, barely beyond nomadism.

That the OT God could morph into a totally different being just because he was transported to America is inconceivable. "God is an unchangeable being" makes no sense out of the dichotomy: in the "old world" God continues to behave like the anger-filled avenger of wrongs against his holy name, etc. While in the "new world" God becomes this being of mercy, tolerance and patience, etc. This is one of the evidences of the BoM's origins being modern and not ancient.

And what exactly are these "plain and precious truths" that have been cut out of the Bible? Anytime we compare our Bibles with the Dead Sea Scrolls we see that they are the same. There are not lacunae in our modern texts....

This just goes to show that one can scratch the surface, pick and choose, and show differences, where there really are no differences. The Old Testament God is also called merciful, tolerant, and patient by Isaiah and many others. And while the Nephites looked forward to redemption in Christ, they were often reminded to repent or be destroyed from off the face of the earth. Much of the BoM concerns the Nephites being chastened or destroyed by the Lord. So, your "evidence" of a modern Book of Mormon falls very flat. BTW, the Old Testament is not just about a bunch of hill people. It also concerns itself with civilizations that could build a temple, conquer other nations, etc. So, again, your descriptions are rather useless and show that you are not really up on what is going on in either the OT or the BoM.

And again, the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT the same! Yes, all the OT books are found in the DSS, except for one (Esther). But if you stop there, then you are really missing the boat. There are fragments from hundreds of books in the DSS that are not in the OT. These include a lot of concepts and teachings that are either barely touched upon in the OT, or not discussed at all. For instance, in the Book of Melchizedek, the author states that "Melchizedek is EL" and "Melchizedek is Yahweh!" Such a concept does not show easily in the writings of the Bible, and so is not a belief held by traditional Christians. Yet it shows that the holy priest Melchizedek was considered deified and put on equal footing with God. I can give dozens of other concepts from the writings of the DSS which do not fit well with traditional Christianity/Judaism, but fit nicely in a Restoration Mormon context.

Now that I've easily destroyed your statements, why don't you go back to the little kiddy sandbox to play?

[Questing Beast]

...

Now that I've easily destroyed your statements, why don't you go back to the little kiddy sandbox to play?

I had a neighborhood kid throw sand in my eyes once when I was about four years old. He did nothing but destroy friendship even at such a tender age.

In repeating the same exegesis that you have always held to be THE truth, you continue to dismiss facts. The OT God is a very different Being than the BoM God. The BoM God is like the Protestant Christian God: which is the OT God tempered by the atonement of Christ into a less dogmatic, less vengeful Being; centuries before Christ was born. So it all depended on which side of the earth you lived on I guess. Listing similarities between the OT and BoM descriptions of God does not address the differences which are fundamental ones.

As for the DSS extra-biblical writings: why bring any of that up? I was pointing out THE BIBLE. Nephi 1's prophesies are centered on the deliberate removal of "the plain and precious truths" by "the great and abominable church". And I asked for examples of these excised passages. We have a nice comparison with our present day Bibles to the scriptures of the OT in Christ's day. And as I said, they are virtually identical. Speaking of the NT, the Gospels and Epistles, Revelation: we have copies spanning the first few centuries of the Christian era: where are the copies that have MORE contents than those passages in our modern NT? What exactly did the RCC take away? I don't see it....

[Magyar]

I had a neighborhood kid throw sand in my eyes once when I was about four years old. He did nothing but destroy friendship even at such a tender age.

In repeating the same exegesis that you have always held to be THE truth, you continue to dismiss facts. The OT God is a very different Being than the BoM God. The BoM God is like the Protestant Christian God: which is the OT God tempered by the atonement of Christ into a less dogmatic, less vengeful Being; centuries before Christ was born. So it all depended on which side of the earth you lived on I guess. Listing similarities between the OT and BoM descriptions of God does not address the differences which are fundamental ones.

As for the DSS extra-biblical writings: why bring any of that up? I was pointing out THE BIBLE. Nephi 1's prophesies are centered on the deliberate removal of "the plain and precious truths" by "the great and abominable church". And I asked for examples of these excised passages. We have a nice comparison with our present day Bibles to the scriptures of the OT in Christ's day. And as I said, they are virtually identical. Speaking of the NT, the Gospels and Epistles, Revelation: we have copies spanning the first few centuries of the Christian era: where are the copies that have MORE contents than those passages in our modern NT? What exactly did the RCC take away? I don't see it....

Do not blame the "RCC." The alterations predate the development of that Church. Gnostics may be more to blame than anyone -- and, ironically, the movement to create and close a NT canon may have been a response to their incursions.

As per Robinson:

"The commonly held notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures as they copied," he remarks, "is bigoted and unfair. In fact, we owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all. The Catholic Church of the fourth century was the result of the Apostasy, its end product--not its cause."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=1&num=1&id=16

[Questing Beast]

"The Church" has never been a monolith. Even as the RCC and Greek Orthodox, et al. grew dominant there were and still are many sects scattered around the Mediterranean world. And in NW Europe the British Isles and Ireland have always kept an independent segment in their religious populations.

The BoM contains a very Protestant view of Catholicism, which even appeared in late LDS writings; e.g. Mormon Doctrine, 1st Edition, specifically IDed the RCC as "the great and abominable church" and "church of the devil". It was Joseph Smith's understanding (that of all Protestant denominations of his day), that the RCC was corrupt if not actually evil; certainly its leadership was out to pervert the right way of the Lord and bind people down. It is instructive that Korihor accuses Alma and "the church" of binding people down to their authority and "glutting" themselves on the wealth taken from the membership, etc. This is a direct BoM parallel to the Protestant accusations against the RCC of the day. So when Nephi 1 says that the great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, the church of the devil, is responsible for removing many of ''the plain and precious truths of the gospel of the lamb" so that many "stumble" in their attempts to obey God, it can be no other entity than Bruce R. McConckie's (original ) definition of "the church of the devil", etc.

That Bruce R. was called to task, admitted his error and allowed his book to be edited in subsequent printings, does not alter the fact of Joseph Smith's vision of history (which, of course, is clear as a bell in the BoM, right up to 1829, then goes murky, as is to be expected). So again I ask: WHAT "plain and precious truths" have been lost to the Christian religion? What is missing from the Bible that the BoM gave back? Even extending the "restoration" to the rest of Joseph Smith's ministry, what did he "restore" that was lost, that is so essentially significant that it can be said that the rest of Christianity does not possess it?

All I see is a Mormon paradigm of the same principles and doctrines that Christians have largely believed in for 2K years. The Mormon assertion that the rest of the world does not have "authority" is just that, an assertion. If there was no "great apostasy", but instead a pressing forward into the dark, seeking enlightenment, and winning liberty to worship as individuals, etc., then I fail to see evidence that any "authority to act in the name of God" was ever lost much less "taken away".

Of course, I do not accept that "priesthood" extends beyond the specific religion claiming its "authority". That means that ANY sect or denomination can claim "authority" to regulate the affairs of said-religion - within the strictures of respecting individual rights, of course.

In asserting a "restoration of all things" especially "lost plain and precious truths of the gospel of the lamb", Mormonism must be able to point to specific beliefs essential to salvation, not just ordinances peculiar to Mormonism. Any religion can develop ordinances and ritual and ceremony, etc. These are significant, even binding, upon the membership, but in no way extend beyond it.

Christianity is not monolithic. It never has been. The RCC wielded the greatest amount and extent and duration of political power. But that is not the same thing at all as spiritual power. And throughout the Christian era, millions of people have kept their own counsel; and millions more have sacrificed to win their religious freedom of worship. Mormonism would not even be here if not for that "protest" movement. Freedom of worship was won with buckets of blood. Mormonism cannot claim any credit for that; and co-opting history to its own purposes by asserting a "great apostasy" offends those who sacrificed even their very lives to win those freedoms for their posterity. To assert that the world was in spiritual darkness, and that its creeds were all an abomination to the Lord, is an offense that the Church still believes and perpetrates.

I find it offensive, because I find ALL dogmatic exclusivity claims offensive. I find the ancient Jews and Israelites offensive, in the extreme even. I find Muslim extremists offensive and scary. Christian fundamentalists: no less so, when you go back just a few centuries; and any modern drifting back to that benighted "elitist" frame of mind is just as wrong and just as offensive.

Forgive the rant if you can. I do get worked up over ecumenical issues. And for all of my life as a Mormon, the one thing that has stuck in my craw has been this "us and them" attitude, wherein "we" are somehow special because we have "authority" and "restored knowledge" that the rest of the Christian world has not had since the original apostles died off....

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

The BoM contains a very Protestant view of Catholicism, which even appeared in late LDS writings; e.g. Mormon Doctrine, 1st Edition, specifically IDed the RCC as "the great and abominable church" and "church of the devil". It was Joseph Smith's understanding (that of all Protestant denominations of his day), that the RCC was corrupt if not actually evil; certainly its leadership was out to pervert the right way of the Lord and bind people down.

Since the Book of Mormon does not contain the word Catholic, or any variation thereof, your reading is questionable. Indeed, you should have clicked magyar's link to the important Robinson article on the topic. Insights like this one demonstrate just why McConkie's opinions ought not be mistaken for Mormon Doctrine:

The Catholic Church of the fourth century was the result of the apostasy—its end product, not the cause. To find the real culprits, we need to look at a much earlier period in church history than the fourth century after Christ. Satan had his ministers in the world long before then, and we must remember that Babylon was already there to oppose Zion in the days of Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Herod.

Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures; it must have slain the Saints of God, including the apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views; it must have dominion over all the earth; it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality; and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times. It should be clear that the great and abominable church that Nephi described in chapter 13 is not the same historical entity that crucified the Savior or that martyred Joseph and Hyrum.

That is Robinson. I think that Noel Reynold's essay in Early Christians in Disarray is even better:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42&chapid=201

For instance:

LDS scholars today conclude increasingly that the root causes of the apostasy were the abandonment or breaking of sacred covenants by the Christians themselves. The more we learn about the first decades after the passing of Christ, the more we can see internal rebellion against God's covenants and against his authorized servants—much like the rebellions against Moses in the wilderness, or against Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1836. The rebels were members of Christ's church, sometimes leaders, who sought for earthly power, glory, and even justification for their own sins. The restoration scriptures give us some key insights: The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants says, "they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:15—16).

Thus the Lord describes this apostasy as breaking covenants and straying from his ordinances. The Lord likewise says concerning his disciples during his earthly ministry, "My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened" (D&C 64:. Thus, we see that apostasy involves breaking God's covenants, turning from him to idols and things of this world, and not repenting of our sins, which is of course the most fundamental thing we have covenanted to do.

The scriptures of the restoration make it clear that ordinances such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and marriage are all based in covenants between men and God. Those receiving the ordinance have made certain covenants with God to turn away from their sins and obey his commandments, and God in turn makes promises to them. The ordinance provides a public witness of these covenants.5 What we had not previously realized is that when the second-century Christians redefined these ordinances as sacraments, they had already abandoned their covenantal understanding of the ordinances. There were significant efforts by some key thinkers in the Protestant Reformation to restore those covenantal understandings to the ordinances, but these all failed. Reinvented as sacraments, the ordinances were understood in traditional Christianity as the means by which God could bless a person with an infusion of divine grace, through the mediation of the priest. Once the covenantal understanding was lost, it made sense to bless everyone possible. So how could traditional Christianity deny baptism to infants if the recipient no longer was expected to be making a meaningful covenant in connection with that ordinance? A similar analysis applies to Christian sacraments such as last rites. This helps us understand what Nephi meant when he explained the apostasy by saying that "many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

Barker's essay, "Text and Context" about the transmission of the Hebrew texts is remarkably like the story in 1 Nephi 13.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the

texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use,

and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that the texts which became

the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins.

Questing Beast admits "That Bruce R. was called to task, admitted his error and allowed his book to be edited in subsequent printings," but insists that "does not alter the fact of Joseph Smith's vision of history (which, of course, is clear as a bell in the BoM, right up to 1829, then goes murky, as is to be expected).

I disagree. I'm very impressed with the accuracy of 1 Nephi 13, which claims that after the appearance of the Book of Mormon, other texts would be found by the Gentiles, and would restore prove that the scriptures were true, and restore specific plain and precious things that had been lost. Nephi observes that one such doctrine is that "the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved." Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God uses ancient writings that have come forth since the appearance of the Book of Mormon to establish that this specific doctrine was known and taught as part of First Temple Judaism.

Questing Beast asks:

So again I ask: WHAT "plain and precious truths" have been lost to the Christian religion? What is missing from the Bible that the BoM gave back? Even extending the "restoration" to the rest of Joseph Smith's ministry, what did he "restore" that was lost, that is so essentially significant that it can be said that the rest of Christianity does not possess it?

How about things like this from Reynolds:

Joseph Smith's teaching that God has a body contradicts the teachings of all Christian churches today. David Paulsen draws from three of his previously published articles to show that in the first and second Christian centuries, both Jews and Christians generally believed that God was embodied. Philo was a lone exception in the Jewish community in Alexandria, as he promoted a Platonized Judaism. It was not until the end of the second century that Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen promoted the idea of an incorporeal God to the Christian community. Paulsen documents his conclusions by extensive quotations from early writers who candidly noted the common Jewish and Christian belief in an embodied God. Even as late as the fifth century, Augustine explained his initial revulsion toward Christianity as a reaction to this "vulgar" view. His conversion became possible when hellenized Christians helped him see how the emerging Christian theology supported the idea of an incorporeal deity.

As part of an ongoing interest in covenant, Noel Reynolds examines the second-century transformation of covenant-based ordinances into Christian sacraments as a principle cause of the apostasy, and thereby illuminates Nephi's statement that many of the covenants were taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). Once the emphasis on history as the source of religious truth lost its relevance (covenants take place in time and space and shape the moral world of all participants thereafter), the Christians turned to Greek philosophy, which derived moral and intellectual structure from rational reflections on nature. Like the Jews and early Christians, Mormons take the historical approach of a covenant people. As Christianity abandoned this traditional emphasis on covenant, it needed stable grounding and imported Greek thought and culture by developing a new reliance on philosophical theology.

I'm also impressed by Barker's essay on "The Secret Tradition"

There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several

centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to

only a few of his followers.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

Questing Beast says "All I see is a Mormon paradigm of the same principles and doctrines that Christians have largely believed in for 2K years."

I've looked in places that show me much more.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

Just google "James Dobson speaks to Mormons".

That is not very specific, Pa Pa. And in fact the first link that comes up has nothing to say about Dobson speaking at LDS meetings. Do you have some pointers to more specific dates or places?

[KevinG]

The new Testament and Book of Mormon gloss over historical inaccuracies that the ancient prophets hid from their people in order to fool them into faith.

[Questing Beast]

Since the Book of Mormon does not contain the word Catholic, or any variation thereof, your reading is questionable. Indeed, you should have clicked magyar's link to the important Robinson article on the topic. Insights like this one demonstrate just why McConkie's opinions ought not be mistaken for Mormon Doctrine:

Here you make an assertion that I think is very bordering on criticism of "the brethren". Because a scholar looks back at the changes McConckie allowed to be made to his book Mormon Doctrine, you say an apostle's "opinions ought not to be mistaken for Mormon Doctrine"!

Imho, a much more accurate view of why the changes in the definition of "the great and abominable church", etc., is that the LDS leadership did not want to continue to teach divisive "doctrine"; they wanted, then and now, to be as civil and non confrontational as possible. This is why the "preacher dude" was eliminated from the endowment drama too.

Robinson: Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: ...

This is what I am talking about: the evidence from Joseph Smith's teachings and the BoM itself does not support this view. Back then, the RCC was the "church of the devil", or Babylon, spoken of. Of course, any Protestant creeds agreeing with Catholic ones would be just as corrupt in Joseph Smith's view.

Reynolds: The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants says, "they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:15—16).

Thus the Lord describes this apostasy as breaking covenants and straying from his ordinances.

Actually that passage cited from the the D&C, the Lord's own words as it were, establishes clearly the doctrine that all Christianity was and remains in "disarray" and an "abomination". Yet we do not ever hear this taught from the pulpit in GC anymore. The reason is clear, to me: the Church's approach is now to establish an ecumenical contact with all denominations and religions where possible. And it is recognized - as it was NOT in Joseph Smith's time - that Christianity at large is anything but abominable, especially compared to the LDS religion and the lifestyle of its people. There is precious little, if any difference, in the "quality" of people these religions produce; and even less difference in their beliefs. The only "significant" differences are usages, or in other words, differences in procedure and ordinances, not intent or doctrine.

Barker: The evidence suggests that the texts which became

the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins.

How can this be? We have the DSS. They agree in the high 90th percentile with our own OT. Where does Barker get the evidence to make such an assertion as "...the texts which became the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church..."

Nephi observes that one such [restored] doctrine is that "the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved."

This sounds like the doctrine of the Nicean Creed! This is a plank doctrine of orthodox Christianity from the start and has never been "lost".

To assert that the theology of the BoM restores this doctrine is not supported by the text. Abinadi's theology is Trinitarian. Joseph Smith's theology at the time was also. It altered by the mid 1830's, and again in the early 1840's, to suit the "God was once a mortal man" theology. As far as I know, NO early Christian sect taught that one. But apparently Joseph Smith picked it up from his Hebrew teacher who was a cabalist.

Reynolds: Joseph Smith's teaching that God has a body contradicts the teachings of all Christian churches today.

Indeed it does. And President Hinckley said he didn't know much about "As man is God once was", thus downplaying the doctrine as much as possible. You are aware, I trust, that Lecture Five in the Lectures On Faith, says that God the Father is a personage of Spirit, and only the Son possesses a tangible body like man's.

ibid: It was not until the end of the second century that Clement of Alexandria and his student Origen promoted the idea of an incorporeal God to the Christian community. Paulsen documents his conclusions by extensive quotations from early writers who candidly noted the common Jewish and Christian belief in an embodied God. Even as late as the fifth century, Augustine explained his initial revulsion toward Christianity as a reaction to this "vulgar" view. His conversion became possible when hellenized Christians helped him see how the emerging Christian theology supported the idea of an incorporeal deity.

This is more of what I am talking about: how, exactly, does the insistence on one pov about "God's nature" in any way distort the doctrines of salvation? It is arguing only. It remains so. The doctrines of salvation through Jesus Christ remain intact throughout history. The arguing illustrates the futility of mortal, finite minds, trying to establish a comprehensible theology about an Infinite Being, that's all. In my experience, more people today just shrug and say, "So what?" when asked to argue about what "God" is and is not, i.e. argue theological definitions. Nothing can be more useless than arguing about The Infinite Being that God Is. In fact, BOTH the Jews and early Christians AND later Christian Fathers, were right: "God" is both corporeal, incorporeal, and any other conceived trait that we can attach to our concepts for "him". Because it is impossible for "God" to be transcended by our own traits, which are finite, and originated from "God"; i.e. all that we are, including all our thoughts and imaginings, are part of the nature of "God".

ibid: As part of an ongoing interest in covenant, Noel Reynolds examines the second-century transformation of covenant-based ordinances into Christian sacraments as a principle cause of the apostasy, and thereby illuminates Nephi's statement that many of the covenants were taken away (1 Nephi 13:26).

Which brings up the question: what are covenants FOR? And imho they are not so you can "check the boxes", showing your conformity to dogma, etc. A strict formality or adherence to usages i.e. ordinances, is focusing on the physical in detriment to the spiritual. If the beliefs in various versions of sacraments or covenants achieve the same belief in God as Lord and Savior, through faith, then all other considerations and differences become moot. We can argue, and we do, that works are important or not; and a host of other differences can be added to the argument. But in the end God is the judge of each heart. Ecumenical believers accept this and let the differences alone, judging each other by the "fruits" of the gospel, which are the same. It's all in the Epistles, this 2K year-old debate on faith and works. Mormonism has not helped solve anything.

Barker: There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several

centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to

only a few of his followers.

And Nibley "resurrected" this notion for Mormons. I've read his collected writings on the subject of the early Christians having had an esoteric or "elite" even secret temple set of covenants revealed by Jesus. If anything, evidence of THAT is evidence of apostasy from what mainstream Christianity has believed and taught for 2K years. In any case, the BoM does not reveal anything new here, i.e. does not restore any of this asserted "secret" lore.

I've looked in places that show me much more.

I'm sure you have. So did Nibley, et al. Mormon scholars looking to prove the reality of a "great apostasy" from a revealed religion by Jesus Christ. If it can be shown that primitive Christianity included sectaries that practiced prayer circles and signs and tokens, etc., as part of their covenant making, then somehow that makes Mormonism more valid than the rest of Christianity as a "restored and revealed" religion.

But that isn't the direction the LDS leadership is taking the Church today. Rather, Mormonism is being associated with Christianity more closely in every way. That's because in the real world, Christians and Mormons ARE almost exactly alike; putting a serious doubt upon the original teaching asserted by Joseph Smith, that "their creeds are an abomination" to God....

[Rivers]

Is our complete teaching found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (as well as other Latter-day Scripture) reveal a more just and loving God?

Yes. I think the Doctrine and Covenants and other teachings of Joseph Smith go even further in portraying a more loving God. There's still a lot of hellfire and damnation preached in the Book of Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

Here you make an assertion that I think is very bordering on criticism of "the brethren". Because a scholar looks back at the changes McConckie allowed to be made to his book Mormon Doctrine, you say an apostle's "opinions ought not to be mistaken for Mormon Doctrine"!

Considering just who it was that insisted on the change (President McKay, among others), I think I'm on safe ground here. And considering the close reading of the Book of Mormon provided by Robinson and Reynolds, versus the miscontexualization in light of anti-Catholic sentiments in the 19th century, doubly so.

SNIP

This is what I am talking about: the evidence from Joseph Smith's teachings and the BoM itself does not support this view.

So you assert, but without dealing with the textual points from 1 Nephi 13-14 that Robinson and Reynolds raised. It's just your re-assertion without evidence.

Back then, the RCC was the "church of the devil", or Babylon, spoken of.

To the Protestants, perhaps. And to LDS thinkers whose readings had been conditioned by such thinking. But close reading of the Book of Mormon raises issues that you still ignore.

Actually that passage cited from the the D&C, the Lord's own words as it were, establishes clearly the doctrine that all Christianity was and remains in "disarray" and an "abomination".

Joseph Smith clearly stated that the problem with creeds is not their content "all of them have some truth" but their function: "creeds set up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty. I want to come into the presence of God, but creeds say, "Hitherto thou shalt come and no further."

So given that function, what should I think of those who say to Mormon Doctrine thou shalt come, and no further? What ever happened to further light and knowledge?

There is precious little, if any difference, in the "quality" of people these religions produce; and even less difference in their beliefs.

See Gee here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=811

How can this be? We have the DSS. They agree in the high 90th percentile with our own OT. Where does Barker get the evidence to make such an assertion as "...the texts which became the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church..."

One might actually read her essays and see the evidence. For instance, she observes that the opaque (that is unreadable, deliberately corrupted) passages in the Masoretic text are not random, but are passages that were important to the Christians.

To assert that the theology of the BoM restores this doctrine is not supported by the text. Abinadi's theology is Trinitarian.

Only when you carefully and selectively proof text. Those who read more comprehensively have a different view.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[rameumptom]

I am teaching an adult Book of Mormon class (like Institute, only for adults) to a group of Hispanics in my area. In discussing the concept of the great and abominable Church, I first asked them what they thought it meant. They all chimed in "Catholic Church." Then we dealt with the actual text, which states that the G&A Church fights against Christ and his saints. I asked them if the Catholic Church was fighting the LDS Church and killing the members, and they all had to admit it was not.

Elder McConkie was a smart person, but allowed the beliefs of the day to cloud his teachings. He even admitted as much when discussing the priesthood ban after the 1978 revelation.

As for the Nephi stating that plain and precious things were removed from the Bible, Nephi probably did not use the term "Bible". Why? Because there was no Bible in his day. He said things were removed from the holy writings. For him, the holy writings would have included things in the Brass Plates of Laban. This would include writings from Zenock and Zenos that are in the Brass plates, but not in the Bible!

As for the Bible, whose Bible are you talking about? For the Qumran Essenes all those "non-Biblical" writings were part of their inspired writings for centuries. Other books once considered inspired by Jews and Christians, but dropped by St Jerome and others from our official current Bible include the Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Odes of Solomon and others. And as I stated, the DSS includes hundreds of books considered scripture by Jews in Jesus' time. They did not have the books of our Bible all bundled together, with the other DSS books separate. Instead, they were all found together.

This clearly shows that Nephi was correct that plain and precious things would be taken out of the "Bible" as he would understand the Bible in his time.

Edited June 16, 2011 by rameumptom

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding one more thing Questing Beast said:

And Nibley "resurrected" this notion for Mormons. I've read his collected writings on the subject of the early Christians having had an esoteric or "elite" even secret temple set of covenants revealed by Jesus. If anything, evidence of THAT is evidence of apostasy from what mainstream Christianity has believed and taught for 2K years. In any case, the BoM does not reveal anything new here, i.e. does not restore any of this asserted "secret" lore.

After John Welch published Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, more LDS scholars have realized the significance of the Temple discourses in the Book of Mormon. Nibley himself eventually noticed that 3 Nephi compares favorably with Old World 40 Day accounts. I added some other observations in Paradigms Regained.

And there have been Barker's direct comments on plain and precious things restored by the Book of Mormon:

Professor Givens spoke of Joseph Smith’s thoroughgoing endeavor to overturn the most sacred tenants of cultural Christianity; and one of these must be the identity of Yahweh the Lord who appears in the Old Testament as the God of Israel. New Testament scholars agonize over why the first Christians applied Old Testament Yahweh texts to Jesus. How, they ask, could the early Christian teachers—all of them—have found Jesus in the Old Testament? (When I wrote a book setting out all this rather obvious evidence, it was regarded as strange and hopelessly radical.)

Another example: The Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation prepared by the Roman Catholic Church, leaves the name Yahweh in the Old Testament instead of using the customary form, “the LORD” but then has “the LORD” in the New Testament. One editorial decision broke the link between the Old Testament and the New and obscured the fundamental proclamation of the first Christians: “Jesus is the Lord” – “Jesus is Yahweh.”

One more example: the new English translation of the Targum, which is the Aramaic version of the Old Testament, does not use the term “Messiah” in the Psalms when translating the Hebrew word “meshiah,” which means Messiah. The reason given is this, and I quote, “It does not seem appropriate to use words like ‘Messiah’ and ‘Messianic’ in connection with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.” (That was published last year.)

It was my challenge to assumptions such as these, which simply ignore the evidence of both the Hebrew Bible and of early Christian writings, that led to my first contact with Mormon scholars.

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh the Lord was the son of God Most high, present on earth in the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah, and so, finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, but something obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the restoration of the “plain and precious things” which have been taken away.

The greatest lost has been the temple and the angels and everything they represented. There can be no doubt that the central theme of Jesus’ teaching was the restoration of the true temple and what it meant. He was proclaimed as the Melchizedek Priest, the expected Messiah—described as Melchizedek in the texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. But what had happened to the Melchizedek priesthood?

One of the great moments in my own journey of discovery was reading an article published in about 1980 showing that the religion of Abraham must have survived until the time of King Josiah, because that was part of what he purged from his kingdom. (In 600 BCE the religion of Abraham was not just a distant memory.)

This suggests that the Melchizedek priesthood also survived until the time of Josiah, associated with the monarchy, as Psalm 110 makes clear. It was superceded in Jerusalem by the Aaronic priesthood, very much later than we often suppose. It is likely that Aaron’s family came to prominence in Jerusalem only when Moses did—as a result of King Josiah’s changes. (And we must remember that it was the Deuteronomists who wrote the major history of those times.)

There were long memories of the lost temple. In the time of the Messiah, it was said, the true temple would be restored and all missing things would be put back: the spirit, the fire, the cherubim, and the ark, but also the anointing oil and the menorah. Now this is strange because there was a seven-branch lamp in the second temple, but maybe it didn’t represent what the original had represented—it was not the Tree of Life.

In the era of Melchizedek then, it was linked to the spirit, the fire, the anointing oil, and the lamp representing the Tree of Life.

In this light, the Book of Mormon identification of Yahweh with Jesus (3 Nephi's "I am he who gave the law), along with the express declaration that Jesus is the son of the Most High (Hebrew El Elyon), Alma's discussion of the Melchizedek priesthood, and Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life, and even the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 13 prophesy about texts being altered, all constitute restored teachings.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

The same seeds can yield vastly different harvests, depending on the soil and nurture they are given.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 17, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[rameumptom]

Questing Beast has obviously not really studied the Book of Mormon. The BoM ties in extremely closely to the ancient First temple rites. As Kevin noted, Margaret Barker spoke of this at the 2005 Joseph Smith Symposium at the Library of Congress, comparing Lehi's Vision of the Tree of Life to First Temple concepts. As she noted, Joseph Smith was spot on regarding concepts of 600 BC.

The ancient and modern temple are all about theophany: entering into the presence of God/Shekinah. This was lost in the Second Temple by the Deuteronomists. Jesus and his apostles sought to restore it, and it was again lost by the Christians as they Hellenized the religion and rejected continuing revelation and authority of God.

The Book of Mormon has many concepts, teachings and events that show theophanies. From 1 Nephi 1 to the end of the Book of Mormon, we continually see and learn of the concept of entering into God's presence. This is the greatest "plain and precious" truth lost.

But it isn't visible to the unbeliever. All they see are simple stories and wars. It takes study and research to find the ties. Yet, when described, they are easy to find throughout the Book of Mormon.

That non-LDS scholars such as Margaret Barker, Raphael Patai, Larry Hurtado, and others are now discovering and writing about such concepts should not surprise Latter-day Saints, who have held such secrets for almost 200 years.

[Questing Beast]

...

See Gee here:

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=811

...

"Studies have shown that "having strong religious beliefs—having a strong interior commitment to faith—was not a significant predictor of high engagement in religious practices and activities. Thus habits of the hand (i.e., behaviors) were more significant for many students than habits of the heart or head in keeping them connected with spiritual and religious concerns." ²⁸"

How is this a good thing? Mindless habit is not conscious religious paradigm-making or devotion....

[Kevin Christensen]

"Studies have shown that "having strong religious beliefs—having a strong interior commitment to faith—was not a significant predictor of high engagement in religious practices and activities. Thus habits of the hand (i.e., behaviors) were more significant for many students than habits of the heart or head in keeping them connected with spiritual and religious concerns." ²⁸"

How is this a good thing? Mindless habit is not conscious religious paradigm-making or devotion....

Congratulations. You found something to complain about, even though it was directed at a fairly vague "many students", not towards general trends, or as a general explanation of faith. But think seriously... would it be better to be an intellectual drug addicted syphlitic, or simple dutiful yeoman disciple of Christ, trying to do the best they saw, according to their lights and opportunity? Don't you suppose that someone who has good behaviors, and is able to observe the differences in life quality, might also be learning from their behaviors. That is, having an actual enlightening learning experience, just as important and powerful and meaningful, if not more, than might be gotten from a book or lecture? Walking a path leads to a very real kind of knowing, whereas knowing without walking inevitably falls short. As Jesus put it, "If you continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Habits of behavior aren't necessarily mindless. Strong interior commitment accompanied by contrary practice demonstrates what?

From the first paragraph of Gee's review:

In 2005 the evangelical sociologist Christian Smith made a small stir when he published the findings of the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR).1 One of the surprises in his study was how well Latter-day Saint youth came off. "In general comparisons among major U.S. religious traditions using a variety of sociological measures of religious vitality and salience—which, to give a standard sociological disclaimer, may or may not have anything to do with the truth content of religious traditions or their adherents' actual subjective spiritual life and health—it is Mormon teenagers who are sociologically faring the best." 2

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

You will recall that you had been wondering what, if anything, Mormonism does for its members that is qualitatively any better than other faiths.

[Questing Beast]

...

As for the Nephi stating that plain and precious things were removed from the Bible, Nephi probably did not use the term "Bible". Why? Because there was no Bible in his day. He said things were removed from the holy writings. For him, the holy writings would have included things in the Brass Plates of Laban. This would include writings from Zenock and Zenos that are in the Brass plates, but not in the Bible!

As for the Bible, whose Bible are you talking about? For the Qumran Essenes all those "non-Biblical" writings were part of their inspired writings for centuries. Other books once considered inspired by Jews and Christians, but dropped by St Jerome and others from our official current Bible include the Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Odes of Solomon and others. And as I stated, the DSS includes hundreds of books considered scripture by Jews in Jesus' time. They did not have the books of our Bible all bundled together, with the other DSS books separate. Instead, they were all found together.

This clearly shows that Nephi was correct that plain and precious things would be taken out of the "Bible" as he would understand the Bible in his time.

You're saying that Nephi did not comprehend the details of his own vision? "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible..."

The Brass Plates were STOLEN from the Jews, ergo their sacred writings would not be anytime soon going to the Gentiles.

I am talking about the Bible in Joseph Smith's possession; the one that he said Nephi saw in vision. It is remarkable that the DSS OT books match up. They are the oldest extant texts we have and they translate essentially into the KJV or any other faithful translation of modern times (which all agree in the high 90th percentile). The Bible of the RCC canon. Minus the apocryphal books, of course, because the Protestants, Joseph Smith's predecessors, dropped them as being "too Catholic".

The Book of Enoch: which ONE would you suggest? We have so many. Until the DDS fragments the oldest was from the 6th century. The DDS fragments are old even for then, and were apparently not of current interest to the later community. This might be obvious, since the Book of Enoch talks about "fallen angels" being to blame for evil in the world, and more or less ignores the Mosaic law, and refers to the renewed sacrifices at the restored temple as "polluted", etc.

In other words, all of the books left out of our Bible were left out for good reasons: they taught conflicting history, covenants and even ethics. The books of the Bible were retained for a reason: they were deemed the most valuable and consistent. So what "plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb" were "taken away" again?...

[Questing Beast]

...

http://www.joehunt.o...arker-talk.html

The same seeds can yield vastly different harvests, depending on the soil and nurture they are given.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Barker: "Nor, least we forget the crisis which has now engulfed biblical scholarship—archeology simple does not give supporting evidence for a great deal of the history in the Old Testament—and scholars are asking themselves, “What are we reading? Whose Bible is this? When was it written?”"

Do you really believe that the LDS Church is going in this direction? She is obviously an ecumenical and fascinating speaker. But this single quote is a fine example of where she's going: far off, away from Mormon dogmatic, "faith-promoting" history. Moses is ESSENTIAL to Mormon canonical scripture. He can't be some conflicting, "Deuteronomistic" insertion by king Josiah's "purge".

If the archeological record speaks truth "whispering out of the ground" as it were, then there is zip evidence for any of that ESSENTIAL Mosaic content in our religion. This doesn't bother Barker in the least, since she has no dog in this fight or axe to grind. She's just in it for the fascination of discovery. She'll use Mormonism like she does everything else; to get more insight. But what she's offering the Church isn't "faith-promoting" in the least....