The Keystone of Our Religion

[mordorbund]

pre-dupe.

Edited November 21, 2018 by mordorbund

[mordorbund]

13 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I’m not really leaping to conclusions here saying the Book of Mormon does not uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel unless you’re opposed to the first paragraph of the introduction to the Book of Mormon:

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

heh. You must me using an older, print edition. Here's the latest (it was changed 5 years ago).

"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."

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

heh. You must me using an older, print edition. Here's the latest (it was changed 5 years ago).

"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."

hmm. that's called moving the goalpost. lol. guess you're right. what's weird is I could have sworn that yesterday I went to lds.org/scriptures to quote the intro.

I wonder if the Church is backing down from it's previous position that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel...  Who knows.  3 hours one Sunday, then 2 hours the next.  

I think the Church would still support the idea of the Bible containing the fullness of the gospel.  These guys describe my previous understanding to it well:

https://askgramps.org/does-the-bible-contain-the-fulness-of-the-gospel/

https://gospeldoctrine.com/book-mormon/introductory-pages/introduction

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I wonder if the Church is backing down from it's previous position that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel... 

Oh, come on!  It was simply a case of poor wording that got corrected.  Sheesh!

[clbent04]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Oh, come on!  It was simply a case of poor wording that got corrected.  Sheesh!

It's not really just a case of wordsmithing here, Carb.

Saying the Bible is comparable to the Book of Mormon is different from saying both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel.

Edited November 21, 2018 by clbent04

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

It's not really just a case of wordsmithing here, Carb.

Saying the Bible is comparable to the Book of Mormon is different from saying both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel.

I didn't say it was wordsmithing.  I said they wrote it poorly -- even incorrectly.  It's not a backing off.  It is a correction.  The link Mordor provided even says.

Quote

To provide clarity and accuracy.

For as long as I've been alive, it has always been clear in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, Seminary, and Institute classes and beyond, that the Bible was incomplete.  And the Book of Mormon was necessary to complete the message of the Gospel.

Where have you ever heard that same phrase attributed to the Bible alone?  NOWHERE.

Stop obsessing over an incorrect detail that has been corrected.  What you read or understood was wrong.  Get used to it.

[clbent04]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't say it was wordsmithing.  I said they wrote it poorly -- even incorrectly.  It's not a backing off.  It is a correction.  The link Mordor provided even says.

For as long as I've been alive, it has always been clear in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, Seminary, and Institute classes and beyond, that the Bible was incomplete.  And the Book of Mormon was necessary to complete the message of the Gospel.

Where have you ever heard that same phrase attributed to the Bible alone?  NOWHERE.

Stop obsessing over an incorrect detail that has been corrected.  What you read or understood was wrong.  Get used to it.

Can you answer with a simple "yes" or "no" - do you think the Bible contains a fullness of the gospel?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Can you answer with a simple "yes" or "no" - do you think the Bible contains a fullness of the gospel?

Yes, I can.

No, it does not.  It is incomplete.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Guest

[clbent04]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I can.

No, it does not.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I beg to differ, sir

https://askgramps.org/does-the-bible-contain-the-fulness-of-the-gospel/

Quote

There is much in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon that does not pertain to the fulness of the everlasting gospel, such as the accounts of wars and the iniquities of men. The fulness of the gospel may be considered to be the combination of all the laws and ordinances that are necessary for one’s salvation. If you had a testimony that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, which it is, there would be no question in your mind that the Bible also contains the fulness of the gospel, simply because the Book of Mormon says it does.

https://gospeldoctrine.com/book-mormon/introductory-pages/introduction

Quote

1) The Book of Mormon contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The term, "fulness of the everlasting gospel," deserves some explanation.  Doctrinal subjects which have become commonplace conversation among the Latter-day Saints are either absent or nearly absent from the record. Consider the following topics:

A) The pre-mortal life.

B) The council in heaven, the war in heaven, the third of the hosts of heaven that were cast down.

C) The three degrees of glory.

D) Baptism for the dead and vicarious ordinances.

E) Celestial Marriage

F) The Word of Wisdom

While these doctrines are essential for us, we may conclude that these doctrines are not essential to the phrase "fulness of the everlasting gospel."  The fulness of the everlasting gospel contains all the principles, doctrines, and commandments required to "gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the world to come." We must remind ourselves that the gospel is simple.  The doctrines of the gospel are simple. The "fulness of the everlasting gospel" is simple.

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I beg to differ, sir

https://askgramps.org/does-the-bible-contain-the-fulness-of-the-gospel/

https://gospeldoctrine.com/book-mormon/introductory-pages/introduction

To start, the gramps response contradicts itself.  So, as much as I respect Clay, I disagree on this response.

Gospel Doctrine, I don't know who put together that website.  But they might have a copyright violation there.  It is not the book Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith.  And while it purports to be a collection of direct quotes from general authorities, that particular page of explanation you linked to is conspicuously absent any quotes that corroborate the portions you quoted.  While the author seems to have done some homework and given it some thought, he's certainly not an authority.  -- Although a guy who speaks Korean already has a leg up on everyone else.  A-hem... Just sayin'.

I'm not an authority either.  But when the authority says that the phrase was deleted for "accuracy", that tells me that the original phrase was... oh... how shall I put this.?...  Inaccurate.

So, let me ask you a question.  What do you define as "The Fulness Of the Gospel"?  Is it the same as that list A-F that you quoted?  Or can you provide your own definition from your own study and ponderings?

Edited November 21, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

The fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the doctrine of repentance and baptism.

[clbent04]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To start, the gramps response contradicts itself.  So, as much as I respect Clay, I disagree on this response.

Gospel Doctrine, I don't know who put together that website.  But they might have a copyright violation there.  It is not the book Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith.  And while it purports to be a collection of direct quotes from general authorities, that particular page of explanation you linked to is conspicuously absent any quotes that corroborate the portions you quoted.  While the author seems to have done some homework and given it some thought, he's certainly not an authority.  -- Although a guy who speaks Korean already has a leg up on everyone else.  A-hem... Just sayin'.

I'm not an authority either.  But when the authority says that the phrase was deleted for "accuracy", that tells me that the original phrase was... oh... how shall I put this.?...  Inaccurate.

So, let me ask you a question.  What do you define as "The Fulness Of the Gospel"?  Is it the same as that list A-F that you quoted?  Or can you provide your own definition from your own study and ponderings?

Well at least you can see where some of the confusion stems.  Since the intro to the Book of Mormon previously stated the Bible contained the fulness of the gospel, I molded my understanding of what the "The Fulness of the Gospel" is so that the Bible could fit in that bucket, probably like anyone else who thought that after 189 years they would have ironed out all the major inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon and we could rely on the plain reading of the text to be true.

My understanding is the fulness of the gospel centers on the essential principles necessary for salvation: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring the to end, all of which are detailed in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. I don't think the fulness of the gospel includes knowing about Kolob, genealogy, wars, general history, or how many Kingdoms of glory we will be divided into. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Well at least you can see where some of the confusion stems.  Since the intro to the Book of Mormon previously stated the Bible contained the fulness of the gospel, I molded my understanding of what the "The Fulness of the Gospel" is so that the Bible could fit in that bucket, probably like anyone else who thought that after 189 years they would have ironed out all the major inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon and we could rely on the plain reading of the text to be true.

Remember that the introduction is not scripture.  The actual text is.  The introduction is a sales pitch.

Quote

My understanding is the fulness of the gospel centers on the essential principles necessary for salvation: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and enduring the to end, all of which are detailed in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. I don't think the fulness of the gospel includes knowing about Kolob, genealogy, wars, general history, or how many Kingdoms of glory we will be divided into. 

Ok.  Thanks.  That's not a bad answer.  I'll tell you where I'm coming from.

In a way, I already stated what I believe it to be.  The urim and thummim.

I believe the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" must be "All that is required to help us receive exaltation."  The Pearl of Great Price states:

Quote

This is my work and my glory: To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Mose 3:19  Grrr. 1:39 (that was for you, @mordorbund)

If that is His work and glory, how can anything short of that be the "fulness"?

Now consider, does a book contain exaltation?  No.  How can it.  So, what is meant by it?  It must be a book that can help us obtain it.

How does one obtain it?  We can certainly quote the third article of faith.  That's wonderful.  But take a look very closely at each line.  What is it that separates us from all of Christianity who also purport to live by the Bible?  Will they receive exaltation?  I'd daresay that most won't.  I'm not Christ. So, I don't know.  But that has been the consensus in the past.  Those who claim to live by the Bible.

Quote

These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

These will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom.  I know these men.  They live by every word that they know of in the Bible.  But they accept not the "RESTORED GOSPEL of Jesus Christ."  Why?

I say it is because they do not and cannot have their own urim and thummim.  The don't even look for it.  Even many within the Church do not do so.  They have not utilized the Book of Mormon as the tool it was meant to be.  It is not merely a book.  It isn't just paper with ink on it.  It is supposed to be our personal urim and thummim.  By utilizing it as such, we have access to an impression of the Spirit that can only drive us in one direction -- exaltation. 

No such claim is made of the Bible.  The Bible has no such power.  It is paper and ink.  While they are good words and tell of many great and important doctrines, it alone will not lead men to exaltation.  But the Book of Mormon will.

That is why the Book of Mormon DOES contain the fulness of the gospel, but the Bible does not.

As I stated in my first post in this thread.  This is my opinion and interpretation.  But I'm not the prophet.  If you're dead set on believing that the Church is "CHANGING ITS POSITION AGAIN", then that's your choice.  But I'll ask this: Will following that path of belief get you closer to exaltation?  Or draw you farther from it?

Quote

Finally I was forced to accept the fact: I had not been invited.

But how was that possible? Had I done something to offend? Did someone just assume it was too far for us to travel? Had I been forgotten?

Eventually, I realized that this line of thinking led to a place in which I did not wish to take up residence.

Harriet and I reminded ourselves that the temple dedication was not about us. It wasn’t about who deserved to be invited or who did not. And it wasn’t about our feelings or our sense of entitlement.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-greatest-among-you?lang=eng

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon [that is not found elsewhere]

I think the issue with your statement is that because the Bible was published first, it became your comparison... So when the Book of Mormon came out, you compared it to the Bible instead of comparing the Bible to the Book of Mormon.  So, instead of saying, "there's no essential doctrine present in the Bible that is not present in the Book of Mormon" you stated it the way you did.

In my view, your statement is backwards because the Bible was organized and published during the Great Apostasy, therefore, it did not become True Doctrine until the Book of Mormon made it so.

[JohnsonJones]

My thoughts on some of the items in the thread.

When building an arch you have items that keep the arch from falling.  The arch remains standing but does NOT become an arch in many instances until you add the stone at the top in the middle of the arch.  It is then where it becomes self supporting and stands on it's own.

With the Book of Mormon it is literally the item that defines our religion currently.  It has a challenge in it that if you pray to know if it is the truth, you can know the truth by the Holy Spirit.  It is also by this that you can know the truth of all things.

Now, If YOU KNOW that the Book of Mormon is true then you must also know that what Joseph Smith said is true.  This would mean that he had the first vision, that he saw the Angel Moroni, that he was given the power to translate the Book of Mormon and that the actions he took to restore the Church of Jesus Christ were those of a Prophet and ordained by God.

This is a BIG reason WHY the Book of Mormon is the keystone.  One could also call it a KEY.

An individual may find stairs leading upwards in many buildings, but at the top the door that leads to the roof and outside is locked.  Without the key (or at times a passcode) they are locked behind this door.  However, with the key they can unlock it to see greater things than the stairwell they are on.

In a similar way men may progress upwards in righteousness but the greater truths and knowledge may be locked to them.  By using  the Book of Mormon and acting upon it's promise in how they can know it is true, they can find the truth of all things.  In this way, they can know the Church itself brings the gospel and true doctrine and thus accept baptism. This can unlock the great truth and knowledge that is waiting for any who accept it.

In this way the Book of Mormon is the KEY to our religion in that it unlocks the doors that previously remained closed to those who did not have it.

It can continue to guide us and help us if we continually read it day after day.

Just some of my thoughts on reading the thread.

[mikbone]

https://www.lds.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

Edited November 22, 2018 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

On 11/20/2018 at 5:07 PM, clbent04 said:

But not key to introducing a lot of essential doctrine that the Bible already contained.

Obviously. But key in clarifying misunderstood doctrines -- which amounts to the same as introducing really.

[The Folk Prophet]

23 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I was only pointing out it doesn’t uniquely contain the fullness of the gospel 

 

23 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

How are you defining the phrase "fullness of the Gospel"? 

I don't think that's the question. The Book of Mormon didn't "uniquely contain" the fullness of the gospel the moment it was read and was in someone's brain -- assuming it could all be remembered. The fact that it doesn't "uniquely contain" something is a pointless point.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 hours ago, person0 said:

I believe, however, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would continue and thrive, because we would have no need to re-create anything, but the prophets instead would simply receive revelation as it applies to us now, and we would simply press forward.

How do we suppose the Book of Mormon was created in the first place? The truths were revealed. But where were they written down, hidden away, and then brought forth by the power of the Lord to restore His gospel? The Book of Mormon.

The idea that the Lord COULD have restored His gospel through a different means is an obvious given. But He didn't. He used the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It's not because the Lord had no other means. It is because it is the means the Lord chose.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I wonder if the Church is backing down from it's previous position that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel

I doubt it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree with @Carborendum. The fulness of the gospel is Christ. More specifically to come unto Him. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And the Bible, most certainly, contains that truth. All the minutiae of how we do that is not in the Bible, but it is not in the Book of Mormon either. These things work hand in hand with living prophets, other scriptures, and revelation to guide us to Christ. But Christ's atonement and the salvation that comes from it is the fulness of the gospel and is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I disagree with @Carborendum. 

How dare you disagree with me.  Don't you realize I'm some random stranger on the internet with an inflated sense of his own self-importance!?!?  I worked very hard to throw out my private interpretation for all to view and criticize as they will.  How do you think i feel when I get criticized?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

How dare you disagree with me.

Watch me and weep!

[zil]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Watch me and weep!

Isn't what happens every time you go out in public?

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Isn't what happens every time you go out in public?