I guess I am a little confused. According to my understanding of Mormon theology, the law of Moses with its associated codes and requirements and sacrifices and rituals were fulfilled with Jesus' atonement and resurrection. That these preparatory laws were merely representations and symbolisms of Jesus' ultimate act of sacrifice.
Why was Joseph so anxious to return to pre-Jesus practices? He did it with polygamy. And now with animal sacrifice? Aren't these things technically regressions instead of progressions?
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
DISCLAIMER: Life is short. So I'm here to discuss scholarship, not apologetic-critical debate.
DonBradley wrote: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
Circumcision was pre-Mosiac, too. I wonder if Smith had plans to eventually cut the foreskins off all uncircumcised male converts? That may have slowed down male convert baptisms significantly...
Of course, in the right circumstances, horny Joe may have taken the men's teenage daughters in the stead of their foreskins, provided the little girls were attractive enough.
KimberlyAnn wrote:Circumcision was pre-Mosiac, too. I wonder if Smith had plans to eventually cut the foreskins off all uncircumcised male converts? That may have slowed down male convert baptisms significantly...
Of course, in the right circumstances, horny Joe may have taken the men's teenage daughters in the stead of their foreskins, provided the little girls were attractive enough.
KA
Technically circumcision might be part of the restoration of all things if animal sacrifice is.
Does everything have to come back to Joseph's possibly mythic insane sex-drive?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Trying to connect animal sacrifice to sexual desire is really stretching I think. Stretching out of reach. But for the life of me I see no sense in reestablishing Old Testament blood sacrifice. In the absense of reason connect it to something...
Perhaps all the desire in followers for new revelations was becoming a burden.
huckelberry wrote:Trying to connect animal sacrifice to sexual desire is really stretching I think. Stretching out of reach. But for the life of me I see no sense in reestablishing Old Testament blood sacrifice. In the absense of reason connect it to something...
Perhaps all the desire in followers for new revelations was becoming a burden.
Huckelberry, we were all joking about the animal sacrifice/sex connection. At least I was joking.
But I wasn't joking about the circumcision. I wouldn't doubt that Smith may have reinstated that as well as animal sacrifice if he had lived long enough.
Kimberly, I realize. I was being a soberpuss and trying to lure defenders into an explaination.
I notice that LDS apologist show an interest in finding older and older themes to restore. They like to look into the Old Testament for clues to older kinds of beliefs different than the relatively modern Old Testament writers. I am not sure of the value of that but it is older. I wonder if Joseph would have reinstated the committing of original sin which was such an important step for us. He seemed to believe it was necessary for fecundity. Maybe doing it over would make more children.