Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Book Of Mormon?

[Kevin Christensen]

For Book of Mormon theology, have you read Brant's FAIR presentation of a few years back?

The theology of the Book of Mormon suggests that Lehi is not only a product of this time period, but that his theology, and therefore Nephi’s, is mostly likely an attempt to preserve some of the theology of God that was being denied in the Deuteronomic reforms. The following are elements of the pre-reform religion that we will see in the Book of Mormon text:

•A Father god, ‘El who is also called el elyon or “Most High God.”

•Yahweh as the son of God (El).

•Yahweh as preeminent God of Israel.

•Yahweh as Messiah.

I suggest that the particular prominence of God as Messiah in the Book of Mormon is a reaction to the reduction of that strand of Israelite religion. What Lehi and Nephi believed to have been removed in the Deuteronomic reform receives compensatory emphasis in Nephi’s foundational theology for his people, and continues through to the end of the Book of Mormon. This is the reason that the Book of Mormon is so consistently and adamantly a witness for the Messiah.

We begin our examination of God in the Book of Mormon just a few verses before 1 Nephi 11:18 with which we began this discussion. In 1 Nephi 11:6 we find:

And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God. . .

Placed in the context of the possible theologies in Jerusalem at the time of the family’s departure, this verse is quite understandable. We can perhaps understand it a little better if we “retranslate” the text to highlight the parallels.

Hosanna to El Elyon; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in [Yahweh] the Son of El Elyon…

Because the understanding of El as Father and Yahweh as son was still an available concept in Hebrew thought when the Book of Mormon begins, this particular description of the Father and the Son finds its best explanation as a continuation of that particular strand of Hebrew theology. While there is even less of the heavenly council remaining in the Book of Mormon than in the Old Testament, nevertheless it is plausible that such an idea continued with the Book of Mormon prophets. Note the interesting language with which Alma describes the Messiah in Alma 36:17:

…I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

Jesus is not the Son of God, he is a Son of God. Assuming that this is translated correctly, we have Alma placing Jesus Christ in the same divine company as did the New Testament authors cited by Margaret Barker–in the heavenly council as a Son of the Most High God. Thus Alma appears to confirm Nephi’s distinction between the Most High God and the Son of God. That brings us forcibly back to 1 Nephi 11:18. In our modern versification, 12 verses after declaring the Messiah to be the Son of God, the spirit shows that same Messiah who is declared to be God. What happened in 12 verses? Absolutely nothing. Nephi has not changed his understanding. The problem we might see as a conflict between verses 6 and 18 lies in our modern imperative of monotheism, a problem Nephi did not have.

In the Jerusalem that Lehi’s family left, Yahweh had been elevated to the position of pre-eminent God. This proto-monotheism, if I may call it that, did not eliminate the strand of thought that understood El as the Most High God. It did, however, proclaim that Yahweh was God. Not Most High God, but God. Based upon Nephi’s plausible worldview, let’s perform our exercise of retranslation again for verse 18:

And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of [Yahweh], after the manner of the flesh.

Not only does this “retranslation” return the text more clearly to its appropriate 600 B.C. cultural context, it is absolutely essential to understanding the theology of the Messiah in the Book of Mormon. From the perspective of Nephite theology, the 1837 change in this text might have helped the Latter-day Saints with their understanding of God, but it did violence to an essential part of the Nephite understanding of God. For the Nephites, it is absolutely essential that they understand that Yahweh was the Messiah who would come.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

It makes a huge difference in reading the Book of Mormon, how a person contextualizes what they read. As Nephi puts it, we have to understand the Jewish culture from which they emerged in order to understand them as they are. Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God completely changed the way I read the Book of Mormon. See, for instance, "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" here, which I wrote upon re-reading Melodie Charles' The Mormon Christianizing of the Old Testament."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547

And as far as the Book of Mormon "leaving out essential saving ordinances," we'll have to disagree on that. I think the Temple ordinances are obvious, omnipresent, and central to the Book of Mormon, the Tree of Life being a temple image, and in the number of important discourses in the Book of Mormon explicitly delivered in Temple contexts, having all of the essential ancient temple themes. "Because of the covenant ye have made," Benjamin says, "Ye have become his sons and daughters."

Since the righteous Nephites in 3 Nephi 8-10 are depicted in a way that makes them equivalent to those that Joseph F. Smith saw in the Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, and that in turn is very consistent with the Harrowing of Hell accounts, it's not really much of a jump to consider ordinances for the dead. The thick darkness I 3 Nephi 8:20 is a "type" of death. Indeed, one of the things I got from Eliade, if you read the quotes carefully is how sacred time brings past present and future together, which is why 3 Nephi emphasizes dead having been raised. And we are given an example of Jesus raising a man from the dead. (3 Nephi 26:15)

We are expressly told that we begin with the lesser part of what Jesus taught to try our faith, and believing these is a precondition for access to the greater. (3 Nephi 26:9). Just before that chapter. Jesus quotes Malachi on turning the hearts of the children to the fathers. (3 Nephi 25:5-6).

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Freedom]

Another example of the temple in the Book of Mormon is the parallel visions of Lehi and Nephi. The book of mormon does not delve into these arguably more advanced doctrines, but they are eluded to. The book of mormon is a foundation book to restore the fullness of the gospel which consists of the 4 principles and ordinances of the gospel. It is teaching precepts that lead to the doctrine of the temple.

[canard78]

It's the trajectory that's important. God will wait for us.

This is a brilliant way of putting it. Mind if I use it in my signature line (attributed)?

[JarMan]

They come along as a consequence of enduring to the end, either in this life or beyond.

It's the trajectory that's important. God will wait for us.

But eventually somebody has to do our temple work, right? And we have to accept it. Which means that our exaltation is not really just between us and the Lord. There always has to be a third party to administer the saving ordinances. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction to what Alma tells us in Alma 12:15: "[Christ] has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance"?

[JarMan]

I am often surprised when I hear members of the Church ask your question. The Book of Mormon itself makes it perfectly clear that the Book of Mormon, as we have it today (the portion of the plates that have only been translated thus far), contains the "lesser part" of the teachings of the Savior to the Nephites. Mormon himself testified that he was about to include the greater portion of the Saviour's teachings to the Nephites in his abridgement, but was forbidden of the Lord to do so by direct revelation. In that revelation, the Lord made it plainly understood to Mormon that he was only to write the lesser part of the Christ's teachings to the Nephites.

Mormon tells us that the Lord revealed "all things" to the Nephites during his ministry in ancient America, but that we gentiles would not be permitted to receive this greater knowledge until our faith had been tried, that test being to see if we gentiles would accept and embrace the abridged portion of the Book of Mormon that would not contain the greater teachings he disclosed to the Nephites. And so we read...

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

12 Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord. And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me. (3 Nephi 26)

I realize that we only have a portion of what the savior taught the Nephites. But the savior's visit is a relatively short (albeit important) event in the entire book. We have many prophets throughout the Book of Mormon teaching us how to come unto Christ. How did they all manage to forget the one thing (saving ordinances) that would get us all of the way to him?

[JarMan]

To be the answer is found in identifying the stated purpose of the Book of Mormon. Does the Book of Mormon fulfill its purpose without including a full dissertation on all truths, ordinances, principles? Yes, it does.

I'm going to have to disagree. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to Christ. But it only brings us part way there because it does not teach us the saving ordinances required to get us all of the way there. We are supposed to be able to get closer to Christ by abiding by the precepts taught in the Book of Mormon than by any other book. But yet there's this major gap that prevents us from truly getting to him.

[teddyaware]

I realize that we only have a portion of what the savior taught the Nephites. But the savior's visit is a relatively short (albeit important) event in the entire book. We have many prophets throughout the Book of Mormon teaching us how to come unto Christ. How did they all manage to forget the one thing (saving ordinances) that would get us all of the way to him?

They didn't "forget." The Lord directly commanded Mormon to not include "the greater part" of the things He taught the Nephites in his abridgement. Mormon testifies that Christ taught the Nephites "all things," and he was about to write all those things (the greater things) into his abridgement, but he was expressly forbidden to include them in his record. The reason why he was commanded to not include the greater things in his abridgement is made clear by the Lord:

"9 And when they (the latter-day gentiles) shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them." (3 Nephi 26)

And that's exactly what happened. The Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith and a significant number of the children of men enthusiastically embraced Mormon's abridged record of sacred Nephite history as the word of God. As a reward for embracing the Book of Mormon with great faith, in fulfillment of the above promise, Doctrine & Covenants sections 19, 45, 76, 88, 121, 128, 132, 138, the temple rites, as well as other things, were given by revelation, no doubt revealing to we latter-day gentiles many of the "greater things" deliberately excluded from Mormon's abridgement.

By the way, don't you find it extremely interesting that in his abridgement, Mormon tells us the Lord Jesus spoke aloud, to the gathered Nephites, Malachi 4 in its entirety (scripture the Nephites did not have!!), just before Mormon tells us the Saviour revealed "all things?" Even though Mormon had in his possession the Lord's doctrinal exposition on Malachi 4, he was forbidden to include it in his abridged record; and this in order to first try the faith of the Latter-day gentiles by seeing if they would first embrace the "lesser portion" of the Lord's teachings to the Nephites . I wonder how many members think it's just coincidence that the Book of Mormon tells us the Lord revealed Malachi 4 to the Nephites just before Mormon tells us that the Lord then "expounded all things" (i.e. the greater things) to them?

Edited July 6, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Why doesn't the Book of Mormon give us sufficient instructions for exaltation?

I think 3 Nephi 17: 20-24 is as wonderful a culmination of the instruction of, as well as a description of, the exalted state as anyone can really handle on this side of the veil.

[rpn]

Can't speak for THE apologetic answer, but given that Mormon condensed a whole lot of material into those things he thought were going to be critical for the last days (having seen a vision of what that was going to look like), and watching from a vantage point of a very mucked up civilization himself, where it isn't clear that any temple work was being done, I'd say including temple information just didn't fit his purpose.

[cdowis]

Are you saying that we don't need the endowment or eternal marriage to attain exaltation?

The BOM contains the "fullness of the Gospel".

Now we need to understand that word "fullness" -- look it up in the dictionary. And what the "gospel" means -- look at what Christ defined it in the BOM.

It does not mean what some people think it means. It does not make the claim to teach everything required for exaltation.

Edited July 6, 2013 by cdowis

[smac97]

This is just utterly terrible logic and rests on the notion of infallibility - once a prophet gets one thing right they must get everything right.

No, that's your logic, not mine. I reject the notion of infallibility of LDS prophets.

My point is reasoning by analogy and syllogism. It's pretty good logic, IMHO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JarMan]

They didn't "forget." The Lord directly commanded Mormon to not include "the greater part" of the things He taught the Nephites in his abridgement. Mormon testifies that Christ taught the Nephites "all things," and he was about to write all those things (the greater things) into his abridgement, but he was expressly forbidden to include them in his record. The reason why he was commanded to not include the greater things in his abridgement is made clear by the Lord:

"9 And when they (the latter-day gentiles) shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them." (3 Nephi 26)

And that's exactly what happened. The Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith and a significant number of the children of men enthusiastically embraced Mormon's abridged record of sacred Nephite history as the word of God. As a reward for embracing the Book of Mormon with great faith, in fulfillment of the above promise, Doctrine & Covenants sections 19, 45, 76, 88, 121, 128, 132, 138, the temple rites, as well as other things, were given by revelation, no doubt revealing to we latter-day gentiles many of the "greater things" deliberately excluded from Mormon's abridgement.

By the way, don't you find it extremely interesting that in his abridgement, Mormon tells us the Lord Jesus spoke aloud, to the gathered Nephites, Malachi 4 in its entirety (scripture the Nephites did not have!!), just before Mormon tells us the Saviour revealed "all things?" Even though Mormon had in his possession the Lord's doctrinal exposition on Malachi 4, he was forbidden to include it in his abridged record; and this in order to first try the faith of the Latter-day gentiles by seeing if they would first embrace the "lesser portion" of the Lord's teachings to the Nephites . I wonder how many members think it's just coincidence that the Book of Mormon tells us the Lord revealed Malachi 4 to the Nephites just before Mormon tells us that the Lord then "expounded all things" (i.e. the greater things) to them?

You are taking the Lord's command to Mormon to not include all of Christ's words and pretending that that same command was applicable to all of the prophets in the Book of Mormon. What evidence is there that Mormon deliberately withheld the words of any prophet but Christ?

One of the main themes running throughout the entire Book of Mormon is family relationships. It starts with Lehi and his family. Some of them are faithful while other of his posterity rebel and form the antagonists of the story. It's strange that neither Lehi nor Nephi nor Jacob mention the concept of eternal families in the context of the family problems they were having.

We get the drama with Mosiah and Alma and the miraculous conversions of their sons. Throughout this story we get a lot of doctrine being expounded upon, but nothing relating to eternal families. Later, Alma the Younger leaves many important teachings with his sons Helaman, Shiblon, and Coriantum. He talks a lot about repentance and Christ's atonement. But he never says anything about families being together forever. We have the father/son combo of Mormon and Moroni with all of their teachings and doctrines. Why didn't either of them mention that they would be together as a family once again?

[Rivers]

The BOM contains the "fullness of the Gospel".

Now we need to understand that word "fullness" -- look it up in the dictionary. And what the "gospel" means -- look at what Christ defined it in the BOM.

It does not mean what some people think it means. It does not make the claim to teach everything required for exaltation.

The gospel in a very specific sense means "good news." IN 3 Nephi 27, Jesus himself difines what the gospel is. It is essentially the good news of Christ atoning for our sins and the manner in which we can access the atonement: Faith, Repentence, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Thus, the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel as defined by the Book of Mormon.

And on another note, I am comfortable with an evolving theology. This is a living church and living things evolve.

[teddyaware]

You are taking the Lord's command to Mormon to not include all of Christ's words and pretending that that same command was applicable to all of the prophets in the Book of Mormon. What evidence is there that Mormon deliberately withheld the words of any prophet but Christ?

One of the main themes running throughout the entire Book of Mormon is family relationships. It starts with Lehi and his family. Some of them are faithful while other of his posterity rebel and form the antagonists of the story. It's strange that neither Lehi nor Nephi nor Jacob mention the concept of eternal families in the context of the family problems they were having.

We get the drama with Mosiah and Alma and the miraculous conversions of their sons. Throughout this story we get a lot of doctrine being expounded upon, but nothing relating to eternal families. Later, Alma the Younger leaves many important teachings with his sons Helaman, Shiblon, and Coriantum. He talks a lot about repentance and Christ's atonement. But he never says anything about families being together forever. We have the father/son combo of Mormon and Moroni with all of their teachings and doctrines. Why didn't either of them mention that they would be together as a family once again?

Mormon abridged the Nephite records. Whatever the "greater things" were that were taught by the Lord, Mormon was forbidden of the Lord to include them in his abridgement. It only stands to reason that he would have excluded those "greater things" throughout the abridgement, as he did in the instance of the writings of the brother of Jared -- and whatever else is in the sealed portion of the plates.

This is not difficult to understand. The Lord commanded Mormon to exclude those "greater things" from his abridgement, and so he no doubt did exclude them throughout, including the "greater things" he included only in the sealed portion of the plates. Other prophets, like the brother of Jared, may have likely also written of these "greater things" themselves, but Mormon would have had to exclude those "greater things" from the abridgement as well in order to fulfill the following commandment:

"9 And when they (the latter-day gentiles) shall have received this (the lesser teachings), which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the lesser things) then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them." (3 Nephi 26)

... and that's exactly what happened: Many of the gentiles of these latter-days did receive and believe the Book of Mormon with all their hearts. Then, as a reward for their faithfulness, many of the "greater things" were revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants and elsewhere.

Edited July 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

I can't imagine Joseph Smith bringing forth the Book of Mormon only to change things afterwards

[JarMan]

Mormon abridged the Nephite records. Whatever the "greater things" were that were taught by the Lord, Mormon was forbidden of the Lord to include them in his abridgement. It only stands to reason that he would have excluded those "greater things" throughout the abridgement, as he did in the instance of the writings of the brother of Jared -- and whatever else is in the sealed portion of the plates.

This is not difficult to understand. The Lord commanded Mormon to exclude those "greater things" from his abridgement, and so he no doubt did exclude them throughout, including the "greater things" he included only in the sealed portion of the plates. Other prophets, like the brother of Jared, may have likely also written of these "greater things" themselves, but Mormon would have had to exclude those "greater things" from the abridgement as well in order to fulfill the following commandment:

"9 And when they (the latter-day gentiles) shall have received this (the lesser teachings), which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things (the lesser things) then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them." (3 Nephi 26)

... and that's exactly what happened: Many of the gentiles of these latter-days did receive and believe the Book of Mormon with all their hearts. Then, as a reward for their faithfulness, many of the "greater things" were revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants and elsewhere.

Okay, I'm going to try this for the third and last time. The verse you are citing (3 Nephi 26:9) is in reference specifically to Christ's teachings while he was in America. The Book of Mormon contains the lesser part of what Christ taught in his appearance to the Nephites. This whole lesser part/greater part duality is found when referring to Christ's teachings only. But it is not found in reference to the teachings of other prophets as far as I can tell (but I will stand corrected if you can show me something differently).

There is no reason to assume that Mormon is withholding doctrines from us in most of his abridgment. This doesn't "stand to reason" at all. Additionally, we have the small plates which is not Mormon's summary but the direct words of Nephi and Jacob. What indication do we have that they were withholding something fundamental?

[teddyaware]

Okay, I'm going to try this for the third and last time. The verse you are citing (3 Nephi 26:9) is in reference specifically to Christ's teachings while he was in America. The Book of Mormon contains the lesser part of what Christ taught in his appearance to the Nephites. This whole lesser part/greater part duality is found when referring to Christ's teachings only. But it is not found in reference to the teachings of other prophets as far as I can tell (but I will stand corrected if you can show me something differently).

There is no reason to assume that Mormon is withholding doctrines from us in most of his abridgment. This doesn't "stand to reason" at all. Additionally, we have the small plates which is not Mormon's summary but the direct words of Nephi and Jacob. What indication do we have that they were withholding something fundamental?

There is every reason to make such an assumption; because if Mormon included in his abridgement the words of other prophets who spoke the same things that Christ taught and expressly forbade Mormon to included in his abridgement, Mormon would be violating Christ's commandment just the same, only he would be disobeying God's will in a more roundabout way.

Edited July 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[JarMan]

There is every reason to make such an assumption because if Mormon revealed the "greater things," although they may have been written or spoken by other

I want to have my mind changed on this subject. I really do. But I'm going to need some evidence from the Book of Mormon to convince me not just an insistence that things are as what you want them to be.

[teddyaware]

I want to have my mind changed on this subject. I really do. But I'm going to need some evidence from the Book of Mormon to convince me not just an insistence that things are as what you want them to be.

Read my edited post above. Somehow my last post posted before I finished my thought.

[JarMan]

There is every reason to make such an assumption; because if Mormon included in his abridgement the words of other prophets who spoke the same things that Christ taught and expressly forbade Mormon to included in his abridgement, Mormon would be violating Christ's commandment just the same, only he would be disobeying God's will in a more roundabout way.

This is based on supposition and not evidence from the text. We don't know that the other prophets taught everything that Christ taught. To me, one of the many miracles of Christ's visit was that he taught the people new things that they didn't know before. For instance, he taught them the higher law, instituted the sacrament and the ordinance of confirmation by the laying on of hands. In this context it is quite reasonable to assume that the things he taught which cannot be written were also new.

And your idea still does not account for the words of Nephi, Jacob, and others on the small plates which were not Mormon's words.

[canard78]

There is every reason to make such an assumption; because if Mormon included in his abridgement the words of other prophets who spoke the same things that Christ taught and expressly forbade Mormon to included in his abridgement, Mormon would be violating Christ's commandment just the same, only he would be disobeying God's will in a more roundabout way.

If we're saying that the details of the possible Nephite endowment are too sacred to discuss then we have some grounds and comparison in the way we do so today.

But why would the Book of Mormon hide up the concept of eternal families? That is not too sacred to talk of. In fact it's often used by missionaries in door approaches so not even one of our 'save it for later' teachings.

There's no grounds for hiding away the principle of eternal families so one can only presume they Nephite/Joseph hadn't been taught it yet and it was 'new news' that came later.

[teddyaware]

If we're saying that the details of the possible Nephite endowment are too sacred to discuss then we have some grounds and comparison in the way we do so today.

But why would the Book of Mormon hide up the concept of eternal families? That is not too sacred to talk of. In fact it's often used by missionaries in door approaches so not even one of our 'save it for later' teachings.

There's no grounds for hiding away the principle of eternal families so one can only presume they Nephite/Joseph hadn't been taught it yet and it was 'new news' that came later.

It could be. But it could also be that the whole "temple thing," including the doctrine of eternal marriage and families, was excluded from the original abridgement because the Lord wanted to test the latter-day gentiles to see if they would embrace the "lesser things" before being exposed to the "greater things." Remember, the concept of temple worship and eternal marriage was a totally foreign concept to the world of 1830, and allowing these doctrines to have made their way into the original abridgement would have been to a lot to unload all at once.

Even the Lord himself didn't allow the principle of eternal marriage and families to be taught in the Restored Church until almost 15 years after the publishing of the Book of Mormon and the establishment of the Church. In the Restoration of the Gospel, the lesser things were taught first, then came the greater things. Including the greater things in our Book of Mormon would have dumped everything on the Church and the world all at once, thereby thwarting the will of the Lord to gradually unfold his doctrines line upon line, precept upon precept -- from the "lesser things" to the "greater things."

Finally, it really doesn't much matter if the greater things, such as eternal marriage, were had by the Nephites prior to the Lord's ministry to them. It is enough to say, as the Book of Mormon itself says, that after the Lord gave the Nephites Malachi 3 and 4 -- scripture they did not have -- He taught them "all things," and that the "greater things" portion of that which he taught were dilberately excluded from Mormon's abridgement. Considering that Mormon tells us the Lord revealed "all things" to the Nephites immediately after giving them the entire chapters of Malachi 3 and 4, it is enough for insightful latter-day saints to know that the greater things he taught the Nephites must have included the sealing power of Elijah and the turning of the hearts of the children to the fathers through temple work. See for yourself...

"1 And it came to pass that he commanded them that they should write the words which the Father had given unto Malachi, which he should tell unto them. And it came to pass that after they were written he expounded them. And these are the words which he did tell unto them, saying: Thus said the Father unto Malachi:(3 Nephi 24) ...

1 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of Hosts.

4 Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord;

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (3 Nephi 25)

Then, immediately after revealing Malachi 4 to the Nephites we read:

.1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things (i.e. the words of Malachi concerning the sealing power of Elijah and temple work for the dead) he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small. (3 Nephi 26)

Using a little logic and common sense, it's extremely likely that if some of the Book of Mormon prophets didn't know about the doctrine of eternal marriage and temple work for the dead prior to the Lord's ministry to the Nephites, the prophets who came after the Saviour's ministry surely did -- the pointed references to Malachi 3 and 4, and the Lord's exposition of the same, leave little room for doubt. By the way, there is at least one Book of Mormon Prophet who knew about eternal marriage and temple work prior to the Saviour's ministry, and that prophet is Mahonri Moriancumer, the brother of Jared, for his revelation of all things is included in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon plates. Nephi was another who knew because he was given the same all-inclusive vision given to the brother of Jared, but was forbidden to write it. There were likely others of the Nephite prophets who lived prior to the Saviour's ministry who also knew of the same "greater things" that Nephi knew.

Edited July 9, 2013 by teddyaware