tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post541335719345662115..comments2024-01-07T12:38:39.465-06:00Comments on Clean Cut: Interrogating My Faith: "Fulness" of the Gospel?Clean Cuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-2091742957386812892016-05-23T21:05:53.577-05:002016-05-23T21:05:53.577-05:00As I said above. I don't think that "the...As I said above. I don't think that "the fulness of the gospel" means that there is stuff there that completes our understanding of the word and will of God, which is what I think you are looking for. <br /><br />But I do think that, like the Bible, it contains foundational truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And since you seem to be looking for "what the Book of Mormon explains clearly and completely" I will take a stab at "more clearly". <br /><br />But definitely, not ever completely <br /><br />In my opinion here are a few of them, <br /><br />2nd Nephi chapter 2 the question of will and agency<br /><br />2nd Nephi chapter 9 a remarkably clear explanation of the concept of spiritual death which the atonement most forcefully addresses<br /><br />Mosiah chapter 15 how Christ is both the Father and the Son<br /><br />Alma chapter 42 The perfect mercy and justice of God and how salvation is possible in light of both of those through the atonement of Jesus Christ<br /><br /><br />I find that these chapters cast wonderful light and elucidation on these topics.<br /><br />But as I said, the definition of fulness that you seek to find evidence of is not the definition I choose to use when I read that phrase.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />MBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-18878425264046224592015-03-30T15:23:02.226-05:002015-03-30T15:23:02.226-05:00"there are parts of the Book of Mormon that e..."there are parts of the Book of Mormon that explain the fulness of the gospel. It is completely and utterly crystal clear."<br /><br />Then can you please clearly answer the original question: <br /><br />So what exactly constitutes the "fulness of the gospel" which had to be restored?<br /><br />What in the Book of Mormon explains this so clearly and completely? (And can you find the same teachings in the Bible?)Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-83075035786085071662011-09-13T12:28:44.141-05:002011-09-13T12:28:44.141-05:00I have read my fair share of lds books. Like doug ...I have read my fair share of <a href="http://www.pioneerbook.com/ldsbooks/index.html" rel="nofollow">lds books</a>. Like doug said, there are parts of the Book of Mormon that explain the fulness of the gospel. It is completely and utterly crystal clear. Thank you Doug for your comment.Misty Ceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12946873573882211338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-84759237586021604232011-09-13T12:28:30.961-05:002011-09-13T12:28:30.961-05:00I have read my fair share of lds books. Like doug ...I have read my fair share of <a href="http://www.pioneerbook.com/ldsbooks/index.html" rel="nofollow">lds books</a>. Like doug said, there are parts of the Book of Mormon that explain the fulness of the gospel. It is completely and utterly crystal clear. Thank you Doug for your comment.Misty Ceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12946873573882211338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-5131168587153220522011-02-08T16:15:24.529-06:002011-02-08T16:15:24.529-06:00I agree, especially, with Matt's #2. The seco...I agree, especially, with Matt's #2. The second witness aspect is important, especially given much of the scholarship surrounding the Bible over the past few decades.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-64913358908932682092011-02-07T14:01:14.492-06:002011-02-07T14:01:14.492-06:00Ok, so it appears my links did not come through we...Ok, so it appears my links did not come through well. I'd just say googling Fullness of the Gospel will get you some good links at Light Planet.<br /><br />To sumarize my own perspective. The Book of Mormon does two things for the Gospel the Bible does not. <br /><br />1. It gives it clarity in that it puts for concepts regarding sin, redemption, the role of Christ, and the plan of salvation that are either not in the Bible or are not clear in the bible.<br /><br />2. More Importantly, it shows Christ coming to the other side of the world, in a magnificent miraculous fashion, which grants Christ an unquestionable reality and authority that the Bible alone can not. By having a second record, the Bible message that Jesus is the Christ is lifted up past the problematic analyses in regards to biblical authorship and authenticity.Matt W.http://newcoolthang.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-88491769522965675762011-02-03T12:38:37.893-06:002011-02-03T12:38:37.893-06:00Matt W, what is it that you like about those links...Matt W, what is it that you like about those links, exactly?<br /><br />Perhaps you can take a stab at answering the question in the OP in your own words, as I know you're quite fond of that rather than quoting others. :)<br /><br />What is the essence of "fulness" in the oft heard phrase "Fulness of the Gospel"? What exactly constitutes the "fulness of the gospel" which had to be restored?Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-18243588937849106492011-02-03T12:34:29.263-06:002011-02-03T12:34:29.263-06:00Great clarifications, Papa D. Thank you. I'm...Great clarifications, Papa D. Thank you. I'm with ya now.<br /><br />Regardless of method, we are "<a href="http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/15/an-early-response-to-the-smpt-conference-paper-on-spirit-birth/#comment-179611" rel="nofollow">truly, honestly, really</a>" children of God, and we can become <a href="http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/01/becoming-like-god-some-things-i-know.html" rel="nofollow">like</a> God and <a href="http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/05/that-they-may-be-one-as-we-are-one.html" rel="nofollow">one</a> with God.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-74839493689754863482011-02-03T10:55:32.242-06:002011-02-03T10:55:32.242-06:00This one is pretty good too.
http://www.lightplan...This one is pretty good too.<br /><br />http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_fullness_doctrine.htmMatt W.http://newcoolthang.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-54142073173043126992011-02-03T10:50:53.647-06:002011-02-03T10:50:53.647-06:00Maybe Stephen M. Veazey reads his EOM?
http://www...Maybe Stephen M. Veazey reads his EOM?<br /><br />http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/fullness_eom.htmMatt W.http://newcoolthang.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-20110843750444214732011-02-02T17:56:22.414-06:002011-02-02T17:56:22.414-06:00I also don't believe in "spirit birth&quo...I also don't believe in "spirit birth" or any construct that posits immortal pregnancy and gestation. I think that's one of the silliest ideas ever propagated, especially now that we can envision babies being born without ever having been in a womb. <br /><br />That's not at all what I meant by "literal" in this case. I just meant that we literally are children of God - and that usage can apply to children who are born, adopted or even just raised without formally being adopted. It's much more of an inheritance issue than a "conceived" issue - but if that usage doesn't work for you, I have no problem dropping it and going with something like, "we literally can inherit all that God has" or "we literally can become like God" or any other construct that means essentially the same thing. <br /><br />I know even that isn't settled in Mormon theology, and I understand the question of whether or not we ever will be "equal" to God, but I'm not concerned about that exact question for this discussion. "Like God" is good enough as the theme of the Bible - and, interestingly, NOT of the Book of Mormon.Papa Dhttp://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-46760611226448113802011-02-02T17:49:27.207-06:002011-02-02T17:49:27.207-06:00Good questions, CC.
1) When I use "created...Good questions, CC. <br /><br />1) When I use "created" I always mean changed from one state to another. I really don't know all the stages of development we experience through the eternities, but I like the general idea of eternal developmental stages. So, when I say "created" as children of God, I mean (in classic Mormon terminology) whatever occurred / occurs to move us from "intelligences" to "spirits" to "mortals" to "spirits" to "resurrected beings" to "perfected". I mean from the beginning to the end in our development as children becoming like our parent(s). Words are funny things, and "created" might not be as accurate as "formed" - but it's semantics to me. <br /><br />2) I really do think becoming like God is THE central theme of the Bible and that everything else points to it. That theme runs through the entire OT and NT, in both implicit ways (e.g., "be ______, because God is ______.") and explicit terms (the NT, especially). <br /><br />If you are interested, one of the longest posts I've ever written on my own blog is entitled "Believing We Can Become Like Our Father Is NOT Vaunting Ourselves". The easiest way to find it is to search for "Vaunting Ourselves".Papa Dhttp://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-7895594963139416292011-02-02T17:14:18.807-06:002011-02-02T17:14:18.807-06:00It was stated that the fulness of the gospel was d...It was stated that the fulness of the gospel was delivered by the Savior. Both the NT and the BofM contain the words of the Savior saying the same thing. However it can be noted that Matthew's version claims that there are excuses for being angry at others, while 3 Nephi denies such. This is a very significant change in the message of the gospel, as Nephi said there was.<br /><br />Every time I read Matthew's sermon on the mount (I wasn't a member) I could feel that although I was seeing more each time, that somehow I had missed the message.<br /><br />The BofM version makes it crystal clear. I agree with Brother Benson in that regard.<br /><br />While I'm not at liberty to expound what the fulness of the everlastiing gospel is, it is sitting right there under our noses.<br /><br />To be able to live it requires the true constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. To be able to see it requires the Holy Ghost. There it is. To deliver it prematurely is wrong.<br /><br />Just because the gospel is there for all to see doesn't make the church unnecessary. The church's main function is to deliver the BofM to the world so that all may read the fulness of the gospel.<br /><br />In addition a vital function is that ordinances are performed in a manner where the true meaning of the ordinance may come to be understood. How can the Spirit explain the real meaning of a sprinkling?<br /><br />And although the temple ordinances have had changes, none have actually changed the hidden meaning of the symbolism (which is the whole purpose of all temple ordinances).<br /><br />As to doctrines being changed; God has allowed the church to go backward to match the interest of the members. This is demonstrated in D&C 119 Heading.<br /><br />When the members come forward so the doctrine will again.<br /><br />Brigham appears to teach that Adam was God, and yet in the next paragrah (one poorly defined statement he made) he talks of Michael (whom he knew was Adam), Jehovah and Elohim (whom he knew was the Father). Note also the temple presents Elohim appearing to Adam. So it has to be understood that he was attempting to raise up people's opinions of Adam. Many churches condemn him. Brigham wasn't being careful with his words (he needed a proof reader badly).Doug Towershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17119162546723347214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-38571124480206208452011-02-02T15:31:20.068-06:002011-02-02T15:31:20.068-06:00MB, definitely interesting to compare "fulfil...MB, definitely interesting to compare "fulfill" and "fulness", in terms of Christ coming to fulfill the law and the "old" covenant by instituting a "new" covenant.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't get us any further in figuring out any kind of LDS distinction/meaning of "fulness" of the gospel since all Christians believe that. It's unlikely that many Mormons would concede the idea that all Christians enjoy the fulness of the gospel (in that sense) because then Mormonism looses its raison d'ĂȘtre.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-78463091235179765732011-02-02T15:24:39.929-06:002011-02-02T15:24:39.929-06:00Papa D, interesting thoughts.
I guess if we'r...Papa D, interesting thoughts.<br /><br />I guess if we're talking semantics, however, then I've got to ask what you about your use of the word "created" when you say we were "<em>created</em> as children to become like our Father". The idea of becoming like our Father seems pretty settled, but if you're talking pre-mortality, then how do you square "created as children" with Joseph Smith's teachings that we weren't "created" but that we are co-eternal with God? And Abraham 3:18 saying that our spirits are eternal? Perhaps you're talking of our creation here in mortality?<br /><br /><em>"I believe everything else (and I do mean everything) is a supplement to that great truth - that as God is, man may become."</em><br /><br />I too love that truth, but I also recognize that there's hardly consensus of <a href="http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-take-on-joseph-smiths-king-follet.html" rel="nofollow">what exactly that means</a> either. <br /><br />I'm not sure I can say that theosis is "THE central theme in the Bible" (if this were the case one would think it would be more obvious to more Christians), but I certainly think it's one of the most important and inspirational themes.<br /><br />I also have to ask you about your use of the word "literal" in describing God as Father. What of those Latter-day Saints who speak of God taking us under His wing--adopting us in a sense--and us agreeing to enter a relationship with Him? <br /><br />I personally don't quite feel comfortable using the word "literal" anymore simply because it automatically seems to imply that we were "literally" born in heaven as sons and daughters of God. Yet "spirit birth" is never explicitly taught in the Book of Mormon nor by Joseph Smith. aquinas recently <a href="http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2011/01/god-self-and-spiritual-birth-two-perspectives/" rel="nofollow">summarized two well written perspectives here</a>, and I like how Richard Bushman describes it--"literalness" doesn't seem to be the key to the story.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-74816884408746691312011-02-02T12:47:23.342-06:002011-02-02T12:47:23.342-06:00Ahh. Semantics. Definitions. Etymologies. And a...Ahh. Semantics. Definitions. Etymologies. And a phrase only used in two religions: LDS and Community of Christ.<br /><br />That last part means that you can't depend just on generally accepted definitions to determine meanings. <br /><br />I assume that "the fulness of the gospel" is used to define the gospel as revealed by Christ and so designated to distinguish it from "the preparatory gospel" (Doc. & Cov. 86:26) which was taught and lived by believers before Jesus came to fulfill the law.<br /><br />Therefore, both the Book of Mormon AND the Bible contain "the fulness of the gospel".<br /><br />"Fulfill" and "fulness" are etymologically related and I think that fact is pertinent to the use of the latter term in that phrase.MBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-32858136310990404302011-02-02T12:30:06.242-06:002011-02-02T12:30:06.242-06:00To me, about the only aspect of the "fulness&...To me, about the only aspect of the "fulness" of the Gospel that is absent throughout pretty much all of Christianity that the Restored Gospel contains is the vision of our ultimate state of being. The idea that we were created as children to become like our Father is one of the central themes of the Bible, but it simply doesn't exist in the "fullest" sense anywhere within Christianity except as a vital element of the Restoration. <br /><br />To me, that is the core meaning of "they deny the power thereof" in JSH 1:19 - and, to me, that is the primary (if not sole) reason a "restoration" was necessary. I believe everything else (and I do mean everything) is a supplement to that great truth - that as God is, man may become. Again, I believe it is perhaps THE central theme in the Bible - and losing it in real theological terms necessitated The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel. <br /><br />Seriously, essentially killing the Father **as a literal father** is the foundational abomination, imo.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.com