Recommended Posts

I was listening to the introduction to the Book of Mormon while driving yesterday. The first paragraph states: 

 

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel."
 
There are several other places where the Book of Mormon is indicated to contain the fullness of the gospel as well. (D&C 20:9, for example)
 
So the thought I had, which I felt might be interesting to discuss, was: If the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, where does that leave things that are not in the Book of Mormon? Take, for example, Eternal Marriage. Nothing in the Book of Mormon, right? But would it be accurate to say that eternal marriage is not part of the gospel? Hardly.
 
I know there are reasonable ideas to be had concerning this. I have a few. I also haven't done any level of research into it. Yet. But I thought it would be interesting to pose the question without any conjecturing to begin with.
 
Just to add to the conversation: The version I have on mp3 (which I presume is pre-2013 changes) is slightly different (see bolded): "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The Everlasting Gospel is Christ.  It is what we need for salvation.  Therefore, the fullness of the gospel is all that we need for salvation.

 

Everything extraneous to this is for exaltation and may or may not be in the Bible/BOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Everlasting Gospel is Christ.  It is what we need for salvation.  Therefore, the fullness of the gospel is all that we need for salvation.

 

Everything extraneous to this is for exaltation and may or may not be in the Bible/BOM.

 

 

Hmm. Not sure I'm buying.

 

First, exaltation is the "fulness" of salvation, and requires Christ just as much as whatever salvation you're meaning.

 

Second, exaltation is, in my thinking, certainly also part of the gospel.

 

Finally, I'm not sure where you get that the everlasting gospel = Christ. The gospel is Christ's gospel, yes. But I don't think it's accurate to define is as simply Christ himself.

 

Here the gospel is defined as our Father in Heaven's plan of happiness. Certainly the plan of happiness includes all the requirements for exaltation, including those things not in the Book of Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered this myself.  The best example I can give of my spiritual understanding of the fullness of the gospel is my physical understanding of a hologram.   When a hologram is introduced to light coming from a correct source a 3 dimensional image (intelligence) is created.  The image is intelligence and understanding in space and time.  What is interesting to me is that a holographic photo can be cut in half and when introduced to the light it will create the same intelligent 3 dimensional image.

 

Thus to me the Book of Mormon is the complete holographic photo - but without the power of the Holy Ghost - the intelligent gospel will not be realized but the two together will create a divine image that is the fullness of the gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered this myself.  The best example I can give of my spiritual understanding of the fullness of the gospel is my physical understanding of a hologram.   When a hologram is introduced to light coming from a correct source a 3 dimensional image (intelligence) is created.  The image is intelligence and understanding in space and time.  What is interesting to me is that a holographic photo can be cut in half and when introduced to the light it will create the same intelligent 3 dimensional image.

 

Thus to me the Book of Mormon is the complete holographic photo - but without the power of the Holy Ghost - the intelligent gospel will not be realized but the two together will create a divine image that is the fullness of the gospel.

 

The holograph thing is a bit abstract. (Why does that not surprise me coming from Traveler?) :) I'm not sure it adequately describes how the Book of Mormon is the "fulness" when there are other aspect of the gospel that are absolutely essential that are not there within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Finally, I'm not sure where you get that the everlasting gospel = Christ. The gospel is Christ's gospel, yes. But I don't think it's accurate to define is as simply Christ himself.

 

I am the way the truth and the life... that is the everlasting gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe both the Bible and Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel, but some truths can only be discerned by revelation, those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Same reason God spoke in parables.

 

The Book of Mormon mentions marriage.  Nephi took a wife, one of the daughters of Ishmael.  By whom was he married, and was that marriage sealed?  I would assume so by Lehi.

 

I had once heard that section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants could have been a book itself, which stems from writings already within the Bible and Book of Mormon, particularly the Bible.

 

Three degrees are mentioned in the Bible, Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestial, yet the idea, the doctrine and principles are given to us in these the last days, via revelation. 

 

The Bible and Book of Mormon contain a fullness of the gospel pertaining to all things that lead a person to be exalted; although some aspects must be understood via revelation by a prophet to us.  It appears to me this is in line with Amos 3:7.

 

These are my thoughts.

 

Edit: Far to many people think "Fullness" means must explain every doctrine in detail, without revelation, for it to contain a fullness, which I believe to be false.  Example, Adam and Eve were married by God, it doesn't say they were "sealed" thus revelation is necessary to understand they were sealed.  Anti's love to cast the black and white scenario for it to be a "fullness." In other words, is not specifically stated, then it doesn't contain, which is a false notion, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the way the truth and the life... that is the everlasting gospel.

 

Yeah...I think that's a stretch as to answering the thread question. If Christ was all there was to it then the Book of Mormon wouldn't even be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe both the Bible and Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel, but some truths can only be discerned by revelation, those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Same reason God spoke in parables.

 

The Book of Mormon mentions marriage.  Nephi took a wife, one of the daughters of Ishmael.  By whom was he married, and was that marriage sealed?  I would assume so by Lehi.

 

I had once heard that section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants could have been a book itself, which stems from writings already within the Bible and Book of Mormon, particularly the Bible.

 

Three degrees are mentioned in the Bible, Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestial, yet the idea, the doctrine and principles are given to us in these the last days, via revelation. 

 

The Bible and Book of Mormon contain a fullness of the gospel pertaining to all things that lead a person to be exalted; although some aspects must be understood via revelation by a prophet to us.  It appears to me this is in line with Amos 3:7.

 

These are my thoughts.

 

Edit: Far to many people think "Fullness" means must explain every doctrine in detail, without revelation, for it to contain a fullness, which I believe to be false.  Example, Adam and Eve were married by God, it doesn't say they were "sealed" thus revelation is necessary to understand they were sealed.  Anti's love to cast the black and white scenario for it to be a "fullness." In other words, is not specifically stated, then it doesn't contain, which is a false notion, at least to me.

 

Follow-up question: Why do you think "as does the Bible" was removed from the Book of Mormon introduction. Is there significance to the fact that it was removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yeah...I think that's a stretch as to answering the thread question. If Christ was all there was to it then the Book of Mormon wouldn't even be necessary.

 

Yes it is.  Just like the Beatitudes is necessary to expound on Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, truths in the Bible is necessary to expound on the everlasting gospel.  The Book of Mormon is necessary to provide that second witness - to make sure one's interpretation of the truths in the Bible is the correct one.

 

Which also answers your other question of the change in wording... The Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel - but just like we state in the articles of faith - as far as it is translated correctly (and as in the case of different books in different Bibles - compiled correctly as well).  And that's the role of the BOM - to restore the Bible back to its correct translation.  So, my guess is - it was removed to avoid confusion.

 

I don't know... I guess I don't really understand your question (or I don't understand the BOM) because to me - it's pretty cut and dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is.  Just like the Beatitudes is necessary to expound on Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, truths in the Bible is necessary to expound on the everlasting gospel.  The Book of Mormon is necessary to provide that second witness - to make sure one's interpretation of the truths in the Bible is the correct one.

 

Which also answers your other question of the change in wording... The Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel - but just like we state in the articles of faith - as far as it is translated correctly (and as in the case of different books in different Bibles - compiled correctly as well).  And that's the role of the BOM - to restore the Bible back to its correct translation.  So, my guess is - it was removed to avoid confusion.

 

I don't know... I guess I don't really understand your question (or I don't understand the BOM) because to me - it's pretty cut and dry.

 

What you're saying is cut and dry. I agree. And I agree the Book of Mormon is necessary for the purposes you have put forth, and for other reasons. What it doesn't help to explain is why the Book of Mormon is specifically, scripturally, declared to contain the fullness of the gospel. There is an implication therein that is greater than it simply testifies of Christ.  The fulness of the gospel, to me, means the fulness of the teachings of the gospel.

 

Now, to be fair, I do not necessarily think you are wrong about the gospel and Christ.  For example, in D&C 76:14 we read: 

 

Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision.

 

And then what record do they bear?  That he lives!

 

I'm looking for clarity of explanation, however, and to broaden my understanding (and hopefully other's). If that truly was the fulness of the gospel, then there it sits in D&C 76 in all it's glory. So why, repeatedly, specifically call it out as a key characteristic of the Book of Mormon? There's something meaningful there, I think, for many sources may testify of Christ, and yet not have the fulness.

 

Moreover, and for example, as to the Bible question. In 1 Nephi 13 we read that the Bible came forth from the mouth of the Jews and contained the fulness of the gospel, but then, by the hands of the great and abominable church, "...they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious..." thereby rendering the Bible incomplete as to the fullness of the gospel. And yet, the Bible surely testifies of Christ still. That was not removed. So if that testimony is the fulness of the gospel, how is 1 Nephi 13 explained relative to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What you're saying is cut and dry. I agree. And I agree the Book of Mormon is necessary for the purposes you have put forth, and for other reasons. What it doesn't help to explain is why the Book of Mormon is specifically, scripturally, declared to contain the fullness of the gospel. There is an implication therein that is greater than it simply testifies of Christ.  The fulness of the gospel, to me, means the fulness of the teachings of the gospel.

 

Now, to be fair, I do not necessarily think you are wrong about the gospel and Christ.  For example, in D&C 76:14 we read: 

 

Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision.

 

And then what record do they bear?  That he lives!

 

I'm looking for clarity of explanation, however, and to broaden my understanding (and hopefully other's). If that truly was the fulness of the gospel, then there it sits in D&C 76 in all it's glory. So why, repeatedly, specifically call it out as a key characteristic of the Book of Mormon? There's something meaningful there, I think, for many sources may testify of Christ, and yet not have the fulness.

 

Moreover, and for example, as to the Bible question. In 1 Nephi 13 we read that the Bible came forth from the mouth of the Jews and contained the fulness of the gospel, but then, by the hands of the great and abominable church, "...they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious..." thereby rendering the Bible incomplete as to the fullness of the gospel. And yet, the Bible surely testifies of Christ still. That was not removed. So if that testimony is the fulness of the gospel, how is 1 Nephi 13 explained relative to it?

 

 

TFP... you are making me think...

 

... if I can't watch XMen tonight because I'm still pondering this thing in my head, I'm going to sic my husband and kids on you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TFP... you are making me think...

 

... if I can't watch XMen tonight because I'm still pondering this thing in my head, I'm going to sic my husband and kids on you...

 

:)  I'm doing my own share of thinking on it.  I appreciate the conversation.

 

But I'm sure X-men will push all other thoughts right out of your head. It's supposed to be pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow-up question: Why do you think "as does the Bible" was removed from the Book of Mormon introduction. Is there significance to the fact that it was removed?

 

Great question, and I would love to have been in the conversation, or at least hear the conversation, regarding its removal.  My personal thoughts remain the same, both scriptures contain the fullness of the gospel and can be discerned through the spirit of prophecy and revelation.

 

There could be significance, but at this moment, I am not sure.  Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned that we are not sure what the "fullness of the Gospel" is.  In particular I do not think fullness means quite what many assert.  For example I think that if scripture, such as the Book of Mormon, contain the fullness of the Gospel that any divinely unauthorized changes to the text would negate that title.  For this reason I do not believe the Bible - as inspired as much of the Bible is - it is not divinely authorized, both in regard to which ancient "books" are to be included or which version of ancient books are divinely acceptable and what translations and interpretations are divinely authorized. 

 

That being inspired is not enough to be the fullness of the Gospel.  What is required is divine approval.  Hopefully this is not too ambiguous for the Folk Prophet.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am concerned that we are not sure what the "fullness of the Gospel" is.  In particular I do not think fullness means quite what many assert.  For example I think that if scripture, such as the Book of Mormon, contain the fullness of the Gospel that any divinely unauthorized changes to the text would negate that title.  For this reason I do not believe the Bible - as inspired as much of the Bible is - it is not divinely authorized, both in regard to which ancient "books" are to be included or which version of ancient books are divinely acceptable and what translations and interpretations are divinely authorized. 

 

That being inspired is not enough to be the fullness of the Gospel.  What is required is divine approval.  Hopefully this is not too ambiguous for the Folk Prophet.   :)

 

It's not ambiguous. It is an interesting thought. It doesn't answer the question about the fulness being in the Book of Mormon when the literal "fulness" (meaning all principles, ordinances, etc.) are not therein. I don't think divine approval constitutes fulness. Any revelation in print anywhere (say, a revelation printed in the Times and Seasons) has divine approval and could be considered divinely authorized. That does not qualify those pieces as a fulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either it is correct.... in which case our understanding of what "Fullness" means needs to be modified or it is not correct.

 

 

Or the third possibly is that we don't have the complete record (aka sealed part) and important details about the fullness are waiting until the time it can be published to the world at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either it is correct.... in which case our understanding of what "Fullness" means needs to be modified or it is not correct.

 

 

Or the third possibly is that we don't have the complete record (aka sealed part) and important details about the fullness are waiting until the time it can be published to the world at large.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that it is correct. The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel. I think we are, definitely, looking for a modification of either what "fulness" means or a modification of it's application.  The third possibility you suggest doesn't register with me. Maybe though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not ambiguous. It is an interesting thought. It doesn't answer the question about the fulness being in the Book of Mormon when the literal "fulness" (meaning all principles, ordinances, etc.) are not therein. I don't think divine approval constitutes fulness. Any revelation in print anywhere (say, a revelation printed in the Times and Seasons) has divine approval and could be considered divinely authorized. That does not qualify those pieces as a fulness.

Looking back my statement of "divine approval"  may not have been strong enough.  Please allow we to be a little more precise.   I believe the fullness relates directly to divine involvement and has little to do with complete doctrine.  Thus fullness is about divine revelation coming through G-d's appointed (ordained) servants holding all the priesthood keys and recording to the people of the world what G-d has commanded and giving a witness that their words are true and according to G-d's specific commandment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back my statement of "divine approval"  may not have been strong enough.  Please allow we to be a little more precise.   I believe the fullness relates directly to divine involvement and has little to do with complete doctrine.  Thus fullness is about divine revelation coming through G-d's appointed (ordained) servants holding all the priesthood keys and recording to the people of the world what G-d has commanded and giving a witness that their words are true and according to G-d's specific commandment. 

 

I think I understand. I don't see it the same way, but that may be a good way of looking at it.

 

Here's how I see it.

 

The "fulness of the gospel" is the fullness of the plan of salvation, which can be explained in fairly simple terms. The details behind the broad points are implicit therein, but do not all need detailed explanation to qualify the broad point as sufficient as a fullness. The basic ingredients of the gospel are faith, hope, charity and love, which lead to repentance and obedience. This is made possible by the Atonement, and all this in place that we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like Him. That's the gospel.

 

It would be unreasonably to expect, for example, that a fullness of the gospel requires every commandment and directive from God to be inclusive to count as a fullness. The fullness in this case is "keep the commandments". Then the commandments come - sometimes line upon line. Sometimes specific to cultures. Sometimes specific to individuals or circumstance. Sometimes permanent and everlasting. But all are contained within the idea of "keep the commandments".

 

The Book of Mormon is the means whereby God chose to deliver a clear and concise presentation of the fullness of the plan of salvation. If you went through the points taught in the Book of Mormon you get a fairly consistent - obey, sacrifice, put off the natural man, obey, repent, come unto Christ, obey, repent, Christ, love, love, faith, hope, Christ, repent, etc., etc., etc...

 

Is it in the Bible too? Yes. But it is not as plain. The Book of Mormon makes it plain, and thereby is a better resource for the fullness.

 

Ultimately, I mostly agree with anatess, in spite of the fact that I debated the point a bit on it. :) I think it requires a bit more than to simply say the fullness is Christ, however, mostly based on the fact of "plainness". In order to have a true fullness it must be given, plainly, how to follow Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean every single detail of how must be included to qualify as a fullness, but that it must be plain enough that those who so humble themselves know the path they should follow. The Book of Mormon qualifies, and exceedingly well, at giving us a plain understanding of how we press forward. Take Moroni 10:3-5. Take Alma 32. Take the sermons by King Benjamin and Abinadi. These profound concepts and teachings are how we follow Christ, and they are not plainly in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts everyone. Great question by the way.

 

My first thought is to say that the fullness of the gospel as contained in scripture is very much in line with what anatess has said. Essentially the gospel is the good news that Christ succeeded in His divine mission. This information is still contained in the Bible as well, but has been corrupted by creeds that the Lord has declared an abomination in His sight. In essence the text is still intact, but the understanding had largely been lost by the time Joseph Smith was searching for the gospel. The BOM clearly teaches the gospel's good news that Christ did indeed atone for the sins of mankind and conquer the grave. 

 

In both cases I perceive this as containing the message of the gospel, or the framework of the gospel, but not the fullness. So the question remains what is the fullness and where-in is it contained? As you have noted it is said to be contained in the Book of Mormon. Long story short... it is...

 

 

Moroni 10:

 

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. 

...

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

 

In my opinion the fullness is only accessed through active participation. The fullness of the gospel (good news) of Christ is in the partaking of His atoning sacrifice. I believe the idea of the fullness of the gospel is often confused with the fullness of the doctrine, but they are separate entities tightly associated with each other.

 

The Book of Mormon contains the fullness because it leads people to Christ. Not just to the idea of Christ, nor just to his teachings, but actually to the Saviour Himself. It does this by strengthening faith in Him and by building a testimony of His church wherein lies the only source of authority to perform saving ordinances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the idea of the fullness of the gospel is often confused with the fullness of the doctrine, but they are separate entities tightly associated with each other.

 

^ this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fullness of the gospel has been available to man since the days of Adam. But because of disobedience or disinterest, it was removed until the next dispensation. The Lord's intent and work was also to restore to the Gentiles the fullness of the gospel in the dispensation of the latter days, which required the fullness of the priesthood. He prophecied this to the Nephites and Lamanites at Bountiful:

 

3 Nephi 20:27 And after that ye were blessed then fulfilleth the Father the covenant which he made with Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—unto the pouring out of the Holy Ghost through me upon the Gentiles, which blessing upon the Gentiles shall make them mighty above all, unto the scattering of my people, O house of Israel.
28 And they shall be a scourge unto the people of this land. Nevertheless, when they shall have received the fulness of my gospel, then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father.

 

This is the same "fullness" that was offered to the Israelites when Moses led them out of Egypt:

 

D&C 84:18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also...

 

This "rest" is what the Lord offers His covenant people when they are obedient. It is this same "rest," which the prophet, Mormon taught his people and whose words were preserved by his son Moroni in the Book of Mormon:

 

Moroni 7:And now I, Moroni, write a few of the words of my father Mormon, which he spake concerning faith, hope, and charity; for after this manner did he speak unto the people, as he taught them in the synagogue which they had built for the place of worship.
And now I, Mormon, speak unto you, my beloved brethren; and it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy will, because of the gift of his calling unto me, that I am permitted to speak unto you at this time.
Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven...

 

 

 

We begin to see a pattern. The "rest" of the Lord is attainable by anyone who is sanctified by the Holy Ghost (baptism of fire) and goes on to "ask" and to "seek" and to "knock." Melchizedek attained this priesthood, which was given to the residents of the City of Enoch through their obedience. From the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, we read:

 

JST Genesis 14:27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.
30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;
31 To put at defiance the armies of nations*, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.
32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order

 

What does it mean to be a priest of this order? Who are the priests of this order? Joseph Smith tells us:

 

D&C 76:51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God...

 

Because of Enoch's obedience and those with him, they received of this fullness and established Zion, escaping destruction from the great flood. Because of the Israelite's disobedience, they failed to build Zion so that they could enjoy the same "rest" and thus wandered in the wilderness, both literally and symbolically. In 1833, the Lord gave Joseph Smith a parable as a warning that the saints at Nauvoo were about to forfeit their opportunity to receive this same fullness and fail grievously at building Zion. Because of their failure to build the Nauvoo Temple in the prescribed period of time, they forfeited the same fullness. Just as Moses was taken from the Israelites, Joseph was taken from the saints, leaving them to wander in a literal and symbolic wilderness, even today.

 

Those who attain this fullness are those who are then called to testify to others to come unto Christ in like manner. Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, Nephi, Joseph Smith are just a few examples. This fullness is available to all God's children without respect to persons. One must diligently "ask" and "seek" and "knock."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this