Book of Mormon Theology

[JarMan]

On 3/10/2018 at 6:54 AM, churchistrue said:

I don't think the BOM is precise enough on salvation, grace, and depravity of man to make this level of distinction.

Well, it’s tricky. The Book of Mormon is clearly not Pelagian or Calvinist. After that things are a little muddy. The Book of Mormon has been interpreted in different ways, for one. Part of this is a matter of terminology and partly it’s bias. People tend to read what they want to read. As for Semi-Pelagianism, it’s not always clear what is meant by that term. There was no Semi-Pelagian church or order that published a systematic theology. It was more of an abstraction, usually used as an epithet to accuse someone of heresy in the 16th and 17th Centuries. The key “heresy” identified with Semi-Pelagianism seems to be the idea that people could be the “first mover” towards their salvation, rather than attributing salvation solely to grace. Thus Arminians were accused of Semi-Pelagianism because they believed in an element of free will in salvation. However, they tried to shed the Semi-Pelagian label by explaining that man’s free will was essentially the gift of grace—prevenient grace—so that God indeed was the beginning of their salvation. If you see prevenient grace in the Book of Mormon, as I do, then you will see Arminianism instead of Semi-Pelagianism since the main distinction between the two, as I understand it, is that very idea. 

When it comes to evaluating the Book of Mormon against Catholic ideas, this is beyond my level of knowledge. Part of this is because there is so much over so many centuries and it’s not always consistent. Which Catholic writer should we compare to? Part of it is understanding the terminology. So I don’t feel like I can offer much in terms of this analysis except to say that most commentators seem to accept Book of Mormon ideas as being generally Protestant. 

On 3/10/2018 at 6:54 AM, churchistrue said:

Although, generally the BOM is more Arminian than Calvin.

The Arminians differed from the Calvinists on essentially four points. On all four of these points the Book of Mormon takes the Arminian view. 1) Calvinism believes in an absolute election according to the will of God while Arminians believe in a conditional election of the faithful; 2) Calvinists believe the effect of the atonement was limited to the elect while Arminians believe in an infinite atonement; 3) Calvinists believe grace was irresistibly bestowed on the elect while Arminians asserted that people had free will to accept or reject grace; 4) Calvinists asserted that the elect could not fall away while Arminians believe the faithful had to persevere throughout their lives. 

So I look at Book of Mormon soteriology as being completely consistent with Arminianism. The hardest idea to reconcile is the nature of man after the fall. This is described in Arminianism as “total depravity” so, on its surface, it might sound inconsistent with the Book of Mormon. But a careful reading of the Arminian Confession of 1621 convinces me it is consistent with the Book of Mormon, though I wouldn’t describe this as being obvious.

But even with the identification of Arminian soteriology you have to be careful and identify which time period and which Arminians since things vary a bit over time and from person to person. It’s clear to me, for example, that Jacob Arminius (the namesake of the movement) is not the best fit since he was undecided about the role of whether those who had received God’s grace could ever fall away. The Book of Mormon is very clear that enduring to the end is essential. Arminius died in 1609 and it’s easy to see that by 1621 the Arminians (lead at the time by Simon Episcoius) had adopted the view that enduring to the end was necessary for salvation. So I would say post-1620 Arminianism is the best fit. Of course things continued to change after that time, but I haven’t done enough research to be able to say if or when the ideas changed enough to become  noticeably inconsistent with the Book of Mormon. That is a project on my to-do list, though. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by JarMan

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, it’s tricky. The Book of Mormon is clearly not Pelagian or Calvinist.

I can make out where the Book of Mormon is not Calvinist, but I'm mostly unfamiliar with pelagianism. Could you give an example or two of where there would be a conflict?

 

[JarMan]

19 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I can make out where the Book of Mormon is not Calvinist, but I'm mostly unfamiliar with pelagianism. Could you give an example or two of where there would be a conflict?

An easy one is infant baptism. Calvinists believe in infant baptism. Other than that it mostly comes down to soteriology. Calvinism basically takes the idea of salvation by grace alone to its logical and extreme conclusion. In Calvinism men are naturally corrupt and absolutely incapable of doing anything good on their own. But God has elected who he will save. The elect can't choose either to accept this saving grace or to deny it. They are simply saved by grace because God wills it. And God will never let them fall away. Free will has nothing whatever to say about whether a person is saved or not. Any good they do is because God has elected them, not because they were capable of doing it on their own. And the atonement is limited in scope to cover only the elect since God wouldn't suffer needlessly for the sins of those he has not elected to save. 

I trust I don't need to cite chapter and verse from the Book of Mormon to show the contradictions. I see the Zoramites of Alma 31 et. al as being a caricature of the Calvinists. They believe they are God's elect and this causes their "worship" practices to be empty and without real devotion. They are also very proud and look down on those who are not chosen. This is very similar to how the Arminians described the Calvinists during the Calvinist-Arminian controversy of the early 1600's. There are several similarities, in fact, between this historic conflict and the ongoing conflict with the Zoramites in the Book of Mormon.

First is the general religious/political layout. The Dutch Republic consisted of seven provinces with Holland being the dominant province. The Arminians were primarily situated in Holland. The corollary in the Book of Mormon is the republican Nephite government centered in Zarahemla which is, of course, where the true Nephite religion was being practiced. In the Dutch Republic the Synod of Dort rejected Arminianism and the Calvinist leaders exiled the Arminian leaders from the country. In the Book of Mormon the Zoramites expelled the converts who had accepted the gospel as brought by Alma and others. In the Netherlands, as in the Book of Mormon, this was not the end of the conflict.

In the Netherlands, stadtholder Maurice of Nassau rose to power and was successful in essentially installing himself as ruler of the republic. In doing so he exploited the conflict between the Calvinists and Arminians by siding with the Calvinists. He wasted no time dealing with his Arminian opponents. Lands Advocate John Oldenbarnevelt was executed and Grotius was among those imprisoned or exiled. (Grotius was imprisoned for life but was able to escape after a few years.)  In the Book of Mormon we have a similar conflict going on with Amalickiah. He joins with the Lamanites and exploited the Zoramite/Nephite conflict and swayed the Zoramites to his cause. His goal was to make himself king over the Nephites. Unlike Maurice of Nassau, however, he was unsuccessful as the Nephites under Moroni's title of liberty rallied to defeat him.

Anyway, I just went back and re-read your post and realized you were asking about Pelagianism not Calvinism. Rather than delete everything I just wrote I'll leave it up in case somebody is interested but I'll have to get back to addressing Pelagianism shortly.

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Anyway, I just went back and re-read your post and realized you were asking about Pelagianism not Calvinism. Rather than delete everything I just wrote I'll leave it up in case somebody is interested but I'll have to get back to addressing Pelagianism shortly.

Hehe, no worries. Learned a lot about Calvanism there.

[JarMan]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Hehe, no worries. Learned a lot about Calvanism there.

If Calvinism is on one extreme when it comes to the role of grace, then Pelagianism is at the other end of the spectrum. Pelagianism doesn't see man as naturally being corrupt. So it doesn't believe in infant baptism. This, of course, is consistent with the Book of Mormon. But according to Pelagianism Christ is merely a good example of the type of life we ought to live, but not a Savior per se. We can essentially become perfect through our own works.

Pelagianism is more of a straw man than a real a religious system. It's mostly been used as a slur (similar to Semi-Pelagianism) to insinuate that someone is a heretic. If you're being accused of Pelagianism you're essentially being accused of believing that you can earn your way into heaven.

[theplains]

On 10/03/2018 at 3:56 AM, JarMan said:

The same article also stresses the role that prevenient grace plays or does not play in Mormon theology when trying to classify Mormonism. I've argued before that the Book of Mormon actually teaches prevenient grace, but uses different terms. 

The Book of Mormon says a few things about grace.

1] One is saved by grace only after one has done all one can do.  If he hasn't done all he can do, then that person is
not saved (2 Nephi 25:23).

2] God's grace is sufficient for you only if you deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might,
mind and strength.  If you fail to do these, then His grace is not sufficient for you (Moroni 10:32).  I think 100%
of people would fail in this point alone.

i believe God's grace is 100% sufficient for me before anything I do. I don't earn it. It's a gift.

Jim