If Mormonism is a Restoration of Primitive Christianity...

[_Jason Bourne]

Joseph had one gift, one task. Everything beyond that was simply Joseph being Joseph.

What was the task and why do you think he went beyond it? What do you base it on. I think I know but do not want to assume.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

If Mormonism is a restoration of Christianity, does that mean Mary Magdelene's primary job was to nurture and care for her children, and to take baked goods to the women in her ward who were sick, and invite inactives and non-members to Home and Family Enrichment Night?

[_Ray A]

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?

[_Danna]

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?

Excellent point. The effort taken to show that modern Mormon practices can be found in early Christianity seems crazy when they can't even be found in the Book of Mormon.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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?

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.

Further, I recommend the work of Dr. Paulson on God embodied, etc.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=392

Also, my admonition to "liken with care," using the apostasy as a model:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... -care.html

[_Ray A]

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?

Edit for clarification:

1 Nephi 13:

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

[_Trevor]

Also, my admonition to "liken with care," using the apostasy as a model:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... -care.html

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. 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. 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

[_Ray A]

Also, my admonition to "liken with care," using the apostasy as a model:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/08 ... -care.html

You wrote:

Further, Latter-day Saints should expect some differences between their understanding of the gospel and Saints of former days, even from certain Biblical5 and Book of Mormon texts, because the "truth" is being revealed in the context of a continuously and contemporarily-restored gospel. The "Restoration" as taught by the LDS Church in this view is not the case of simply "reinstituting" a full and complete thing called "Christianity" from the past; but rather, it is the general concept of God's covenants with His children in their own times and situations, continuing revelation and authority; the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. are still being acted out today.6 Specifics could be termed or understood differently as in the Bible wherein different time periods and cultural milieus are not univocal. When the sixth article of faith says "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth," it does not mean that the Church on earth in Christ's day exactly paralleled the current organization complete with Young Men/Young Women advisers.

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.

[_moksha]

I think the introduction of polygamy and the extension of speculation to justify it, prompted the bulk of the changes.

[_bcspace]

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