Speaking of the “Dispensation of the Fullness of Times,” the Dispensation we are part of, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote:
This verse should read as a “controlling verse” of sorts in how Latter-day Saints approach biblical (and even Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical evidences for LDS theology [e.g., patristic literature]). We do not believe the Bible or any of our other scriptural texts are formally sufficient (per the Protestant understanding of the nature of scripture [per sola scriptura]). We should not expect those from previous dispensations to have believed, at least to the same degree we do, certain doctrines. For instance, while the New Testament teaches that there are varying degrees of rewards in the hereafter, outside a typological interpretation of 1 Cor 15:40-42 and Paul’s mention of the “third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:12, the New Testament Christians did not believe in the “three degrees of glory” as outlined in D&C 76. Our modern view of the hereafter is informed by explicit modern revelation.
Furthermore, LDS should not have a need to “proof-text” passages to support every single doctrine and practice of the Church; sometimes, this need to treat the Bible as being formally sufficient, apart from being both anti-biblical and inconsistent with the LDS view of Scripture, has resulted in some eisegetical approaches to texts such as Ezek 37 and Isa 29. With that being said, Latter-day Saint theology is either supported by, or is neutral towards, the biblical texts (much of this blog is dedicate to providing, through the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, biblical evidences for LDS theology), so Latter-day Saints should not fear having to engage in exegesis with our Evangelical, Catholic, and other friends within the broad Christian spectrum.
Finally, D&C 128:18 shows that one should not expect the Book of Mormon to explicitly detail all the elements of Latter-day Saint theology; as discussed previously, this is a misunderstanding of the term “fullness of the gospel” that it is said to contain; just as with the New Testament Church, the Nephites would not have had modern Latter-day Saint theology revealed to them (though, again, in spite of much eisegesis of passages such as Moroni 8:18 and Alma 11:44, nothing in the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with modern LDS theology).
Such considerations should serve as cautions for Latter-day Saints in their exegesis of ancient canonical and non-canonical literature.
. . . [I]t is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. (D&C 128:18)
This verse should read as a “controlling verse” of sorts in how Latter-day Saints approach biblical (and even Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical evidences for LDS theology [e.g., patristic literature]). We do not believe the Bible or any of our other scriptural texts are formally sufficient (per the Protestant understanding of the nature of scripture [per sola scriptura]). We should not expect those from previous dispensations to have believed, at least to the same degree we do, certain doctrines. For instance, while the New Testament teaches that there are varying degrees of rewards in the hereafter, outside a typological interpretation of 1 Cor 15:40-42 and Paul’s mention of the “third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:12, the New Testament Christians did not believe in the “three degrees of glory” as outlined in D&C 76. Our modern view of the hereafter is informed by explicit modern revelation.
Furthermore, LDS should not have a need to “proof-text” passages to support every single doctrine and practice of the Church; sometimes, this need to treat the Bible as being formally sufficient, apart from being both anti-biblical and inconsistent with the LDS view of Scripture, has resulted in some eisegetical approaches to texts such as Ezek 37 and Isa 29. With that being said, Latter-day Saint theology is either supported by, or is neutral towards, the biblical texts (much of this blog is dedicate to providing, through the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, biblical evidences for LDS theology), so Latter-day Saints should not fear having to engage in exegesis with our Evangelical, Catholic, and other friends within the broad Christian spectrum.
Finally, D&C 128:18 shows that one should not expect the Book of Mormon to explicitly detail all the elements of Latter-day Saint theology; as discussed previously, this is a misunderstanding of the term “fullness of the gospel” that it is said to contain; just as with the New Testament Church, the Nephites would not have had modern Latter-day Saint theology revealed to them (though, again, in spite of much eisegesis of passages such as Moroni 8:18 and Alma 11:44, nothing in the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with modern LDS theology).
Such considerations should serve as cautions for Latter-day Saints in their exegesis of ancient canonical and non-canonical literature.
