If Mormonism is a Restoration of Primitive Christianity...

[_Ray A]

Seeing as how the early Christians believed in an anthropomorphic material God, subordinationism, Deification, plurality of Gods, etc. I don't see the problem.

Did they believe in polygamy?

[_bcspace]

Justin Martyr defends the practice and refers to it as one of the mysteries. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270

[_Trevor]

Did they believe in polygamy?

The more fundamental question, imho, is "who were they?"

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The Book of Mormon itself promises "greater things." The "fulness of the gospel" does not mean "all truth" or "all gospel principles," etc. It never meant that.

Could the Nephites have been saved/exalted without practising baptism for the dead?

First of all, I believe they could. Secondly, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention baptism for the dead, but it doesn't preclude its practice in any way, either. It's an argument from silence to assume the Nephites never practiced baptism for the dead. I don't know that they did or did not.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

LOaP,

That is a wonderful post. If there is anything to the Mormon Restoration, then this is surely what it must be like. You have formulated the concept of restoration in a way that I was reaching toward in my later years at BYU. Your discussion of observing the contextual differences in reading different books of scripture was spot on.

Cheers, mate.

It was this viewpoint that turned me off of Louis Midgley's discussion of Book of Mormon theology in his criticism of a piece from the Signature volume. The standpoint that Book of Mormon theology must be the same as contemporary LDS theology simply does not work.

Which piece by Midgley? I've actually seen him argue for somethign very close to what I argue in regards to the Book of Mormon and presentism. For example, in his criticism of the Book of Mormon commentary by McConkie and Millett he said:

The flaws in Doctrinal Commentary are ones common to much of Mormon scholarship. The tendency is to divert attention away from the message and meaning in the text under consideration, and back towards what we already know....They falter at the very thing they undertake because they ignore many of the hints, clues, subtleties, obscurities, complexities and puzzling passages in the Book of Mormon. By treating the scriptures merely as a collection of proof texts to be fitted into a theological system, the authors of Doctrinal Commentary downplay or ignore the historical setting and content, narrative structure, language, and literary form in the text, and hence fail to identify fully and explicate the prophetic message and warnings found in the Book of Mormon. (See his "Prophetic Messages or Dogmatic Theology? Commenting on the Book of Mormon: A Review Essay," FR 1:1.)

Nor did I see the necessity of seeing things this way, when, as you observe, it is not necessarily the case that historical Nephites would have had the same theological understanding as modern LDS. Very well done. If your work on this represents the next generation of apologetic writing, then it is a clear improvement over the past.

kudos to you,

Trevor

gratzi, gratzi.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

In Rommelator's historicity thread you mentioned that you believe that the Book of Mormon is about "real people", and "real places". And therefore real events. Your above post doesn't explain what I'm asking you. If you believe in "real people" and "real events", then "continuing revelation" and new understandings should never supercede a "historical record". It can only supercede it if read as a progressive theology/understanding. In other words, you are either a literalist, or a liberal in understanding. And you seem as convoluted as Noah is on this.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking. I think a record can be based on historical occurrences, but not necessarily pertain to my current situation. As I said, the Bible and Book of Mormon aren't just static records, they are examples of a worldview that continues to the present. Canon doesn't close, in that regard. Certainly scriptures play a fundamental undergirding role, but even that role itself is undergirded by God continuing to act in history.

Or am I not understanding your point?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Did they believe in polygamy?

The more fundamental question, imho, is "who were they?"

Bingo.

[_Trevor]

Which piece by Midgley? I've actually seen him argue for somethign very close to what I argue in regards to the Book of Mormon and presentism.

Maybe I am misremembering. I think it has been a full decade since I read the pieces in question. I know it was a FARMS review of Melody Moench Charles' chapter on Book of Mormon Christology in New Approaches.

[_Ray A]

As I said, the Bible and Book of Mormon aren't just static records, they are examples of a worldview that continues to the present. Canon doesn't close, in that regard. Certainly scriptures play a fundamental undergirding role, but even that role itself is undergirded by God continuing to act in history.

Or am I not understanding your point?

Well let me give you a "what if?" situation. What if Jesus was nothing more than a messiah extrapolated from the Old Testament, in other words, scriptural and prophetic embellishments were placed upon a possible real-life character who was actually nothing like the "superman" in Jesus. These would be legends, right? So Jesus is embellished by having him fulfil Old Testament prophecies, "goes into Egypt" to fulfil prophecy, Herod's slaughter of children to fulfil prophecy, etc., but none of it actually happened. It's just scriptural embellishment to boost faith in the message. And the Christian messiah is in fact nothing like the expected Jewish messiah.

So we can look at this in two ways - it's either historical reality that Jesus really did fulfil Old Testament prophecy, was the true messiah, or we can look at it as scriptural embellishment. I'm also thinking along the lines of Genesis 50 in the Inspired Version, where the extended non-KJV verses speak of Joseph Smith. The question is - were these extended verses in the original Genesis 50, but "lost", or did Joseph Smith make these "inspired extensions"? No such verses, by the way, have ever been found in any ancient manuscripts, so it's reasonable to assume that they were added by Joseph Smith, or as you would say, "God continuing to act in history". But what if God never did any such thing, and it was just Joseph Smith's pseudepigraphic extensions? None of it would be historical reality. From verse 23 on (IV) would all be invention, and Joseph of old never said these things, or made these prophecies. Given that we don't have a single MS supporting the Inspired Version, is it not more reasonable to believe that they are invention? So your concept of "God continuing to act in history" is more like God continuing to make up history.

Likewise, though you'll disagree, viewing the omission of BFTD in the Book of Mormon, considering all the numerous references to baptism, modes of baptism, infant baptism, etc., yet omitting what Joseph Smith wrote considering John the Revelator:

6 And further, I want you to remember that John the Revelator was contemplating this very subject in relation to the dead, when he declared, as you will find recorded in Revelation 20:12—And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Yet no where in the Book of Mormon do we find this teaching, though we supposedly have the Revelator's words in the Book of Mormon giving us the "lost scriptures" and teachings.

Ether 4:

15 Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.
16 And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.
17 Therefore, when ye shall receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land.

So, according to D&C 128, the Revelator had baptism for the dead in mind, but when the Book of Mormon is unfolded in its "plainness", this teaching is mysteriously absent, and is only first publicly taught in 1840.

It may be an argument from silence, according to you, but it's a strong one, if you have the disposition to weigh evidence logically, and not "only by faith".

[_Jason Bourne]

LDS doctrine allows for the idea that some of the teachings we have today may have been held for the last days. Some of the teachings about God may be among those hence the Book of Mormon silence on some of the later items.

This still doesn't explain, Jason, why the Nephites didn't know about, nor practice baptism for the dead. The best explanation, in my opinion, is that Joseph Smith developed this as an afterthought gleaned from reading the epistles more closely. Why would infant baptism be so important to post-New Testament Nephites, and not baptism for the dead

I agree this is a problem. Of course the New Testament has only one obscure passage about it as well.