InCognitus Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: Not at all new. Even the added detail of more scriptures being discovered in an isolated Land of Promise across the great waters was not new. Swedenborg talked about a land of isolated Israelites with ancient scriptures that would soon be revealed. A British diplomat rocked Christianity in the 18th century when he claimed to have discovered and translated lost Indian scriptures that described the mission of Jesus Christ and what appears to be the Mormon Plan of Salvation. Apparently I didn't make my meaning clear. I was talking about the fact that the Book of Mormon is added to the canon of scripture in such a way that it is an equal to the Bible. The "talk" of ideas and claims of finding lost scripture doesn't cut it if you aren't willing to put it up next to the Bible itself and stick with it. Doing that is a bold claim, and that is very new. And that is what has the traditionalists all up in arms. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 13 minutes ago, InCognitus said: I was talking about the fact that the Book of Mormon is added to the canon of scripture in such a way that it is an equal to the Bible. That's what Swedenborg claimed.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 1 hour ago, JarMan said: What I'm getting at is that we don't need to accept something in the Book of Mormon as new solely because it's unorthodox or heretical to mainstream Christianity--as long as there are clear pre-cursors that could have been drawn upon. Do you actually mean "new" in the sense of inventive and lacking precedence, or are you speaking of a restoration of original doctrine which has since been elided? You seem to be claiming no break with precursors and fobbing that off on us as diachronic evidence of the BofM containing nothing "new," which entirely begs the question. Dan Vogel, for example, takes exactly the same approach, but using exclusively 19th century information. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: I'm not familiar with the argument regarding the Corpus Hermeticum and the Book of Mormon. Could you point me to some information? The Corpus Hermeticum is the sine qua non of the Renaissance, which is the Classical Restoration par excellence -- the restored Academy of Plato included. I thought you understood that. The Renaissance magi (including Dee, Giordano and others)were the intellectual vehicles of that restoration, and many of them were burnt at the stake. I'll PM you and Rajah Manchou with a summary of some Book of Mormon connections with Hermetica. 1
InCognitus Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 17 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: That's what Swedenborg claimed. Was The Heavenly Doctrine actually canonized as scripture along side the Bible, or was it just revered as "divinely inspired" writing?
Rajah Manchou Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 1 hour ago, InCognitus said: Was The Heavenly Doctrine actually canonized as scripture along side the Bible, or was it just revered as "divinely inspired" writing? As far as I know, Swedenborg didn't pretend that his writings were canonical in any sense. But he did claim that there was an ancient canon of Biblical and extra-Biblical texts that had been preserved by Israelites in a distant land. He taught that those Israelites were separated from the main body, in part, to preserve those ancient scriptures. 2
JarMan Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Do you actually mean "new" in the sense of inventive and lacking precedence, or are you speaking of a restoration of original doctrine which has since been elided? You seem to be claiming no break with precursors and fobbing that off on us as diachronic evidence of the BofM containing nothing "new," which entirely begs the question. Dan Vogel, for example, takes exactly the same approach, but using exclusively 19th century information. The whole idea of the restoration is that doctrines from the early church were lost or purged and then restored in modern times. The OP listed several: "work for the dead, three degrees of glory, LDS temple rites, pre-existence, theosis, differing priesthoods, embodied Father, church hierarchical structure". I take the view that the doctrine in the Book of Mormon is consistent with a coherent early modern doctrinal outlook--mainstream Protestantism, for the most part, but with some exceptions. The non-trinitarian and anti-paedo baptism outlooks are two of the most obvious. The Arminian soteriology is another example. So, yeah, take Dan Vogel's outlook, subtract a couple of centuries, switch to Europe and you'll get something close to my view. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 25 minutes ago, JarMan said: The whole idea of the restoration is that doctrines from the early church were lost or purged and then restored in modern times. The OP listed several: "work for the dead, three degrees of glory, LDS temple rites, pre-existence, theosis, differing priesthoods, embodied Father, church hierarchical structure". I take the view that the doctrine in the Book of Mormon is consistent with a coherent early modern doctrinal outlook--mainstream Protestantism, for the most part, but with some exceptions. The non-trinitarian and anti-paedo baptism outlooks are two of the most obvious. The Arminian soteriology is another example. So, yeah, take Dan Vogel's outlook, subtract a couple of centuries, switch to Europe and you'll get something close to my view. The Restoration movement generally does seek to restore the primitive Christian Church, but the Mormon Restoration takes a far more bullish view. As has been pointed out in this thread by some others, the Mormon Restoration (unlike that of the Waldenses, Puritans, Campbellites, and such) includes everything in all dispensations -- not by any means limited to the BofM. Which is why an augmented approach is called for. Loyd's OP is really quite limited in scope, and (as I show in my own studies) misses so much that it cannot be taken seriously. One must not only read the BofM more closely, but one must also study the context intensively. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 14, 2021 Posted March 14, 2021 On 3/12/2021 at 11:18 AM, smac97 said: The Book of Mormon is evidence of the Restoration, of restored authority, of living prophets and apostles. It was translated by a prophet, who thereafter was involved in the further revelations that you are here styling as "unique/restored." Proxy work is found in both the New Testament and the Doctrine & Covenants, but temple worship, of which proxy work is a part, is also referenced in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 2:37, Alma 7:21, Hel. 4:24, 2 Ne. 12:3, 3 Ne. 24:1, 2 Ne. 5:16, Jacob 1:17, Jacob 2:2, Hel. 3:14, 3 Ne. 11:1). The three degrees of glory are sourced from the entirety of our canonized scriptures, including the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., Alma 12:9-11, Moro. 7:14-19). The pre-existence is sourced from the entirety of our canonized scriptures, including allusions in the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., 1 Ne. 11:11, 2 Nephi 9:12, Mosiah 2:28, Alma 11:45, Alma 13:3, Helaman 14:17, Ether 3:16, Moro. 10:34, Theosis is sourced from is sourced from the entirety of our canonized scriptures, including some in the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., here and here). The "differing priesthoods" concept seems to come mostly from the Bible and the D&C. The corporeality of God the Father doesn't seem to be found in the Book of Mormon. The church having a hierarchical structure is referenced in the Book of Mormon, albeit in different forms that what we have today. I guess the "primary apologetic explanation" is that we have never claimed that the Book of Mormon is the sole source of revealed knowledge in this dispensation. I can't help but wonder if this supposed incongruence is more a matter of the individual's perspective and expectations. The Ninth Article of Faith states that "{w}e believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." The "does not reveal" and "will yet reveal" portions of this merit some attention. I think there were things that were alluded to in the past, but which have been more fully revealed in this dispensation, including in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and so on. Well, they may not have had "all of these doctrines." Also, the Book of Mormon was not a random abridgment of the Nephite records. Moroni states: "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing." (Mormon 8:35.) I think Mormon may have had the same perspective. I believe Mormon abridged what the Lord wanted him to give to us, and that other things would be revealed in the first instance, or else expanded upon, through revelations given to Joseph Smith. These are my off-the-cuff thoughts. I'm not sure if there are "standard or common explanations." Thanks, -Smac Good post, thanks The passages in the BOM regarding God's body, see Ether 3 That's a big contradiction to creedal Christianity 1
the narrator Posted March 19, 2021 Author Posted March 19, 2021 On 3/12/2021 at 2:18 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Sounds like you may have something forthcoming along such lines, Loyd, and I look forward to it. Nothing in the pipeline. Just a question that has interested me. Thanks for the replies everyone. TBH, I was hoping that maybe there might be something a little more theoretically rich as opposed to just saying people need to squint harder, but so it goes.
Recommended Posts