The earliest Mormons (in the early 1830s) would have largely agreed with you. They certainly believed the laws of animal sacrifice had been fulfilled with the "great and last sacrifice" (to use the Book of Mormon term) made by Jesus. But even at that early period Mormons didn't perceive a radical divide between the "Old" Testament and the New--to them the two testaments were somewhat continuous. This perception of continuity, and attempt to integrate them, became stronger with time, such that in Nauvoo Joseph Smith was aiming to restore not only the primitive Christian church, but all the laws, ordinances, and offices of the Bible, with the exception of those which were specifically part of the ritual Mosaic Law--I.e., what the New Testament seems to definitely say was "fulfilled" in Christ.
By Smith's logic, since sacrifice was practiced before the Law of Moses was given (e.g., by Abel, Noah, and Abraham), it wasn't part of the Law of Moses proper, and therefore wasn't entirely fulfilled in Jesus. While some of the specific sacrificial practices of the Jews had been laid out in the Law of Moses, the general principle of sacrifice was in force before the Law, and thus should remain in force after the Law.
Joseph Smith sought to integrate pre-Mosaic Hebrew religion with New Testament Christianity, on the view that they were all part of the same whole.
Don
Thanks for the information, Don. I sure wish Joseph would have chosen a better set of rules than what was laid out in the Old Testament. Even as a believer I would not let my children read that book because of the incest, violence, sex, etc.
Interesting, isn't it, that male prophets have tended to show much greater zeal for restoring polygamy than for restoring circumcision?
I actually wrote a paper in college (BYU) about Joseph Smith's views on circumcision. You're right, KA, that his logic re: animal sacrifice also works to justify circumcision. I actually think he realize this, but the New Testament is sufficiently clear that Gentile Christians don't require circumcision that I doubt he intended to have it practiced in the church. One of the Twelve Apostles under Smith in Nauvoo published theological arguments, which I believe originated with Smith himself, to the effect that the covenant of circumcision was still in force, but only for Jews.
Don
DISCLAIMER: Life is short. So I'm here to discuss scholarship, not apologetic-critical debate.
DonBradley wrote:Interesting, isn't it, that male prophets have tended to show much greater zeal for restoring polygamy than for restoring circumcision?
I actually wrote a paper in college (BYU) about Joseph Smith's views on circumcision. You're right, KA, that his logic re: animal sacrifice also works to justify circumcision.
I imagined you'd already thought of that, Don Bradley. Great minds and all...