DiscussMormonism.com

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.

It seems its religious agenda is to clarify all of the doctrinal and theological contentions of the early 1800s.

- Indians as Israelites
- Infant baptism
- Baptism by immersion
- The nature of grace and works
- The resurrection

Etc etc

mackay11 wrote:It seems its religious agenda is to clarify all of the doctrinal and theological contentions of the early 1800s.

- Indians as Israelites
- Infant baptism
- Baptism by immersion
- The nature of grace and works
- The resurrection

Etc etc

Indeed. Critics don't often seem to make much of this, but the obvious signs of early 19th C American Protestant religious obsessions throughout (in terms quite absent from any Biblical text) are some of the clearest possible evidences that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text, but is a piece of relatively modern *pseudepigrapha.


*That's a polite word for a text written so as to suggest that it was in fact written by someone other than the person who actually wrote it, and (perhaps also) in a period of history and place different from the real circumstances of its composition. For some reason, if the person who writes the text in this misleading way has a religious motive, it is regarded in some circles as terribly, terribly simplistic and unsophisticated - even coarse - to use the words 'fraud' or 'forgery'. It is especially bad to use those words if the person who wrote the text succeeds in getting lots of people to believe his false representations, and to invest their best energies and deepest affections in that belief over a lifetime. The author is then entitled to be revered as a religious genius.

Chap wrote:

mackay11 wrote:It seems its religious agenda is to clarify all of the doctrinal and theological contentions of the early 1800s.

- Indians as Israelites
- Infant baptism
- Baptism by immersion
- The nature of grace and works
- The resurrection

Etc etc

Indeed. Critics don't often seem to make much of this, but the obvious signs of early 19th C American Protestant religious obsessions throughout (in terms quite absent from any Biblical text) are some of the clearest possible evidences that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text, but is a piece of relatively modern *pseudepigrapha.


*That's a polite word for a text written so as to suggest that it was in fact written by someone other than the person who actually wrote it, and (perhaps also) in a period of history and place different from the real circumstances of its composition. For some reason, if the person who writes the text in this misleading way has a religious motive, it is regarded in some circles as terribly, terribly simplistic and unsophisticated - even coarse - to use the words 'fraud' or 'forgery'. It is especially bad to use those words if the person who wrote the text succeeds in getting lots of people to believe his false representations, and to invest their best energies and deepest affections in that belief over a lifetime. The author is then entitled to be revered as a religious genius.

There's a simply reply of course: "But it's written for our day... You heathen!"

But really, I agree. There are so many sections that sound very modern in content and tone.

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

The Book of Mormon is actually rather clear in its agenda. Or at least it is clear what God's agenda is behind it. If the claims around the Book of Mormon are true, then God (or these god-like beings) have been directly interfering with mankind for some time including in the modern era. For the Book of Mormon to have a basis in fact, you must believe these beings not only lead several groups to build ships and cross the ocean to come here. But, that these beings caused permanent records of these civilizations to be created that lasted thousands of years (something even beyond our technical capabilities - all records of our civilization's existence would be wiped out in a few hundred years if it were to suddenly end). Not only that, but they interfered again to reveal and to cause these records to be translated. These are extraordinary claims and seem to form an agenda around belief in this rather remarkable set of events given little to no proof (in fact, proof has been removed namely the gold plates). It would seem the Book of Mormon is a challenge or test for our species if it has basis in fact. If not, then it is an obvious fraud.

It was intended as the impetus for a new religious group to be lead by Joseph Smith.

It's hard to summarize the Book of Mormon's religious agenda under a single heading. In its theology it was half Methodist and half Baptist, perhaps of the Barton Stone variety. It laid great emphasis on the sacred history and destiny of the continent, the mandate to convert the American Indians, and the reality of spiritual gifts. Perhaps it could be best described, overall, as an American apocalypse.

But to ask about the book's religious agenda may be the wrong question. Joseph's religious agenda at any given time tended to cater to the people around him. He could dictate the extremely evangelical Book of Mormon with one breath, and the astonishingly universalist D&C 19 with the next. The theology was less important to him than the vision of a New Jerusalem with him as its prophet-king. Ultimately the agenda had less to do with religion than with narcissism. At least, that's what I think.

+1. Well said, Celestial Kingdom.

Water Dog wrote:

Zadok wrote:What say you?

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

That's comforting. The Book of Mormon's agenda is to give us a unique view on an idiotic concept. I might burn mine if that is true. At least it might save me some money on my heating bill this winter.

Water Dog wrote:

Tobin wrote:That's comforting. The Book of Mormon's agenda is to give us a unique view on an idiotic concept. I might burn mine if that is true. At least it might save me some money on my heating bill this winter.

You are a uniquely odd Mormon...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but I don't think you understand the Atonement.

I think I understand it quite nicely. It's idiotic. Supposedly God is so impotent he has to send his son here to this planet to be butchered by us monkeys. Then by the magic of this bloody slaughter, God can then forgive us and resurrect us. For some unknown reason, God wasn't able to do that before and the ability to resurrect people was magically beyond him until then. It's a disgusting and ludicrous dogma born from the primitive and perverted minds of men.