What is the Book of Mormon's religious agenda.

[_mentalgymnast]

Supposedly God is so impotent he has to send his son here to this planet to be butchered...

Umm...we're all going to die one way or the other. If Christ's death/resurrection had greater meaning than simply dwelling on the fact that he died...then that might be the reason God let it happen. By definition I would say that God is not impotent. He has all power. The fact that Jesus was God's Son and died on the cross seems to indicate that God the Father was on board with the whole thing. Are you in the business of defining/dictating what God can or can't do to bring about His purposes?

That's arrogance in my book. You don't seem to have any short supply of it.

If you haven't noticed, we're all sent here to this planet to ultimately die. You could be "butchered" in an auto accident. Or you could die while watching the latest iteration of Annie. Are you going to hold God responsible for that? Yes, dying on a cross is a horrific way to die. And it creates notability above and beyond dying in one's sleep. It creates a stark memory. It's bloody cruel on the part of the crucifiers. But it's whether or not Christ's death had unique MEANING (resurrection, atonement) that matters. I'm sure you can see that.

It may be well to go back and review some scriptures:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?l ... ament=Book of Mormon

Regards.
MG

[_Tobin]

Supposedly God is so impotent he has to send his son here to this planet to be butchered...

Umm...we're all going to die one way or the other. If Christ's death/resurrection had greater meaning than simply dwelling on the fact that he died...then that might be the reason God let it happen. By definition I would say that God is not impotent. He has all power. The fact that Jesus was God's Son and died on the cross seems to indicate that God the Father was on board with the whole thing. Are you in the business of defining/dictating what God can or can't do to bring about His purposes?

You seem to be under the delusion that God sent his son to be butchered for some greater purpose. I would submit that you are missing the point of why he came in the first place. He came to teach us to be better and we were the ones that killed him for it. Then we create this monstrous and disgusting ritual out of his death by ingraining it with magic and primitive mysticism. I think a God of knowledge, science and goodness would be sickened by what we have chosen to do and believe.

That's arrogance in my book. You don't seem to have any short supply of it.

I don't know about that, but there has to be some arrogance involved when someone sees evil and chooses to call it good.

If you haven't noticed, we're all sent here to this planet to ultimately die. You could be "butchered" in an auto accident. Or you could die while watching the latest iteration of Annie. Are you going to hold God responsible for that? Yes, dying on a cross is a horrific way to die. And it creates notability above and beyond dying in one's sleep. It creates a stark memory. It's bloody cruel on the part of the crucifiers. But it's whether or not Christ's death had unique MEANING (resurrection, atonement) that matters. I'm sure you can see that.

I don't think my death will have any significance. I am just too primitive to prevent it. And I don't believe that is true of God. God is far more medically and scientifically advanced than us and as a result is not subject to death. However, I do think there is significance in the fact a being that was in essence immortal may have chosen to be one of us.

It may be well to go back and review some scriptures:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?l ... ament=Book of Mormon

Regards.
MG

Maybe you forgot, but I don't put much significance in scriptures. I don't believe in magic sayings or that the age of a statement by itself makes it wise. I'd prefer to think about something rationally and use a modern understanding. I can't help but smile to think that you actually choose to use a more barbaric and primitive way of understanding to guide your views of the modern world.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think it conveys a unique understanding of the Atonement which is a quite radical and profound shift from traditional Christian philosophical thought.

Seems like standard Anselm to me.

[_Nevo]

I've been trying to round up the transcripts of circuit preachers of the 1800s. It's remarkable how much commonality there is.

You might be interested in this.

[_Chap]

I think it conveys a unique understanding of the Atonement which is a quite radical and profound shift from traditional Christian philosophical thought.

Seems like standard Anselm to me.

Here's a summary of Anselm's position. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that differs radically from his view? If there is, is the Book of Mormon's position significantly different from Penal Substitution, a common Protestant view?

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) theory of the atonement was formulated by the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Anslem believed that humans could not render to God more than what was due to him. The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

The classic Anselmian formulation of the Satisfaction View needs to be distinguished from Penal Substitution. Penal Substitution states that Christ bore the penalty for sin, in place of those sinners united to him by faith. Anselm, by contrast, regarded human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, gives God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary in this sense: he pays the honour instead of us. But that substitution is not penal; his death pays our honour not our penalty.

The Protestant reformers shifted the focus of this satisfaction theory to concentrate not merely on divine offense but on divine justice. God's righteousness demands punishment for human sin. God in his grace both exacts punishment and supplies the one to bear it.

This is an important difference. For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for John Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.

[_subgenius]

In another thread, [url=viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36814&p=863903#p863903]Here[/url] "Everybody Wang Chung" offers a quote regarding the Philosopher Joseph Spencer....

Philosopher Joseph Spencer, for example, has argued that the Book of Mormon transcends questions of historicity. Spencer, who on many occasions has clarified that he believes that Book of Mormon characters are real figures from the past, argues that approaching the text in terms of its historicity can distract from the book’s religious agenda.

This caused me pause. What is the Book of Mormon's religious agenda?

If to testify of Christ, there is a huge amount of surplusage before it every gets to Jesus, and once there, a paucity of teachings other than what is already in the Bible.

If the agenda is to restore the 'fullness' of the gospel then why isn't polygamy mentioned, or temple ordinances, or priesthood function and administration. Why does the Book of Mormon seem to wallow in the basics of the gospel while avoiding the meat? (I know milk before meat...)

I'm having difficulty understanding what exactly is/was the 'religious agenda' of the Book of Mormon?

What say you?



edited to add: I guess I don't know how to link to another topic on the same forum.

How can you be confused or unaware of the blatant "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" ?
This seems to be a rather clear and concise "agenda".

[_Zadok]

How can you be confused or unaware of the blatant "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" ?
This seems to be a rather clear and concise "agenda".

I believe that that tag-line was added so the Church could counteract claims of not being Christian.

If we are to truly believe this is it's 'religious agenda', then why is there nothing to enhance or amplify Christs teachings from the Bible. "Another testament" is a nice tag-line, but not true!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here's a summary of Anselm's position.

Hmm. Anselm talks about God's justice and his honor almost interchangably, so in my opinion the Wikipedia summary insists a little too hard on a distinction between Ansem and penal substitution. Certainly penal substitution theory derives from Anselm even if it differs in subtle ways. But in any case, Joseph Smith obviously wouldn't have gotten his ideas directly from Anselm, but rather from Protestant preachers in the penal substitution tradition.

For instance, E. B. Fletcher:

God cannot consistently, as a moral governor, pardon sin without an atonement. It is evident that the penalty of the law of God must be met by some consideration. For to say that it is given up, is saying that the law of God is of little consequence—God does not consider his law worth a vindication, after all the solemn sanctions he has given it. . . . Again, if the mercy of God meets the penalty of the law; we must say, the attribute of justice has a claim on man, but the attribute of mercy meets that claim. But mercy, as well as justice, demands that the penalty of the law be satisfied. . . . And as nothing short of a sacrifice, possessing infinite merit, can redeem the world, and suffering alone cannot render it so, we conclude that the merit of the atonement must arise from the dignity of the character of Him who made the offering.

[_Chap]

Here's a summary of Anselm's position.

Hmm. Anselm talks about God's justice and his honor almost interchangably, so in my opinion the Wikipedia summary insists a little too hard on a distinction between Ansem and penal substitution. Certainly penal substitution theory derives from Anselm even if it differs in subtle ways. But in any case, Joseph Smith obviously wouldn't have gotten his ideas directly from Anselm, but rather from Protestant preachers in the penal substitution tradition.

For instance, E. B. Fletcher:

God cannot consistently, as a moral governor, pardon sin without an atonement. It is evident that the penalty of the law of God must be met by some consideration. For to say that it is given up, is saying that the law of God is of little consequence—God does not consider his law worth a vindication, after all the solemn sanctions he has given it. . . . Again, if the mercy of God meets the penalty of the law; we must say, the attribute of justice has a claim on man, but the attribute of mercy meets that claim. But mercy, as well as justice, demands that the penalty of the law be satisfied. . . . And as nothing short of a sacrifice, possessing infinite merit, can redeem the world, and suffering alone cannot render it so, we conclude that the merit of the atonement must arise from the dignity of the character of Him who made the offering.

For comparison, will Water Dog quote us the clearest statement of the Book of Mormon's doctrine of atonement (from the Book of Mormon itself, please), and point out what is unique about it?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Of course, a better candidate to have influenced Joseph Smith is James Hervey's Meditations and Contemplations, a book Joseph is known to have owned:

The Son of God, taking up our nature, obeys the law, and underoes death, in our stead. By this means, the threatened curse is executed in all its rigour, and free grace is exercised in all its riches. Justice maintains her rights; and, with a steady hand, administers impartial vengeance; while mercy dispenses her pardons, and welcomes the repentant criminal into the tenderest embraces. Hereby, the seemingly thwarting attributes are reconciled. . . . "To expiate transgressions against an infinite majesty is a most prodigious act: it must cost vastly more than any common surety can pay to redeem a sinful world. What reason have we to believe that Jesus is equal to this mighty undertaking?" All possible reason, replies the apostle; from the dignity of his person, for he is the image of the invisible God, and from the greatness of his works, for by him all things were made.