Some insights into the Book of Mormon and “the fullness of the gospel”

Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon contain the “fullness of the gospel.” This is based on explicit statements in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as:

Which [the Book of Mormon] contains a record of a fallen people, and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also. (D&C 20:9)

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim. (D&C 27:5)

He [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, gibing an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Saviour to the ancient inhabitants. (Joseph Smith History 1:34)

Opponents charge that this is false, as the Book of Mormon does not make explicit mention of certain Latter-day Saint beliefs and practices, such as pre-mortal existence; deification (eternal progression); the Aaronic Priesthood, and other doctrines and practices of the Church. Firstly, it should be noted that some of the beliefs critics claim to be absent in the Book of Mormon are present in the Book of Mormon, albeit implicitly. Theosis, for instance, is alluded to in 3 Nephi 28:10 and other passages. Often, critics will read their Protestant doctrine of formal sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura) into the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint Scriptures, expecting/demanding to find an explicit reference to a certain doctrine. However, nothing in the Bible itself demands that there must be explicit scriptural witness for a doctrine to be true (our Presbyterian friends, for instance, will have to admit that there are no explicit references to infant baptism, and one must carefully compare and contrast the Old and New Covenants with one another, as well as the relationship of circumcision and baptism to covenantal membership with one another, alongside other topics, such as the issue of “household baptisms” in the Acts of the Apostles to arrive at such a doctrine).

On the issue of the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon, I would recommend Mike Parker’s analysis of this issue, which is a response to a criticism by the late Walter R. Martin, author of The Maze of Mormonism and other poorly researched books (not just on “Mormonism”; speaking myself as an expert on Roman Catholicism, he made some howlers on Mariology and other topics in his debates with Jesuit scholar, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa).

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself is explicit that it contains only the lesser things (i.e., basic teachings) in 3 Nephi 26:1-12.

Many Latter-day Saints have also (correctly) pointed out that the term “gospel” simply means “good news,” and that the Book of Mormon defines the “gospel” in 3 Nephi 27:13-21 which records the very words of the resurrected Jesus Christ when He appeared in Mesoamerica after His resurrection:

Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repent and is baptised in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast unto the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into this rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptised in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.

In the above pericope, the “gospel” is defined as being the good news about the life, divine mission, atoning sacrifice, triumphant resurrection, and further glorious final coming of Jesus Christ. As the Book of Mormon contains the most lucid explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42), it qualifies as containing the fullness of the gospel.

In a number of revelations, the Lord commands the preaching of “the fullness of the gospel.” For instance, note these two texts from the Doctrine and Covenants, dating from 1836:

And cause that the remnant of Jacob, who have been cursed and smitten because of their transgression be converted from their wild and savage condition to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. (D&C 109:65)

And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fullness thereof, and bear record of my name. (D&C 118:4)

I find these two verses to be significant as they were revealed to Joseph Smith during a period of inscripturation, even according to opponents of the LDS Church. Obviously, during this time, various practices and doctrines were developing and were being revealed, and yet, Joseph Smith could command the preaching of the “fullness of the gospel” in 1836. One could argue that this is further evidence that the term does not mean “totality of doctrine and practices,” but a simpler concept, as outlined above.

Some opponents charge that D&C 42:12 teaches the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel and therefore the Book of Mormon is superfluous, even according to LDS teachings. The verse reads as follows:

And again, the elders, priests, teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.

This is a rather superficial reading of the verse. The Bible is coupled with the Book of Mormon (note the use of the coordinating conjunction “and”), so the “fullness of the gospel” is either being said of the Book of Mormon alone of the Book of Mormon coupled with the Bible.

Finally, one anti-Mormon activist from Ireland, Desmond Ferguson (previously of Irish Church Missions) once argued in an article entitled “Witnessing to the Mormons” (Autumn 2005 issue of “The Banner of Truth” magazine by ICM) that the introduction of the Book of Mormon taught the Bible contained the fullness of the gospel, therefore, the Book of Mormon is not necessary (similar to the claims with D&C 42:12). However, the argument fails on a number of points. Firstly, the introduction to the Book of Mormon has never been considered as inspired or canonical, unlike the text of the Book of Mormon itself. The introductory page(s) of the various editions of the Book of Mormon have changed since 1830, alongside the (also uncanonical) introductions to the chapters one finds in the text.

Bruce McConkie, who was one of the main contributors to the introduction of the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, wrote:

[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.

Source: Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989), 289–290.

Secondly, the introduction of the Book of Mormon was changed, as reflected in the 2013 printings of the LDS Scriptures. The introduction only predicates the “fullness of the gospel” on the Book of Mormon, without mention of the Bible:

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.

Thirdly, using Ferguson’s “logic,” this is a disproof of the hypostatic union, as Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, as one cannot have two “fullnesses,” as he claimed in his article.

Just a note to American readers: I am Irish, so there will be some differences in how I spell words (e.g. fullness vs. fulness) in this and other posts on this blog. Just fwiw.

Lecture by Stephen Webb on "Mormon Christianity"

Eric Johnson vs. Stephen Webb

Eric Johnson, a longstanding anti-Mormon activist (he is the lapdog of Bill McKeever at “Mormonism Research Ministry”). In a review of Stephen Webb’s book, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints (Oxford, 2013), a work of scholarship that Johnson et al. could never emulate, he makes this rather silly statement (this is just one of many):

== In fact, if Mormons are Christians (synonymous), then I wonder if Christians (like Webb considers himself and I think I am too) are Mormon? ==

While Eric Johnson (and the rest of the team at MRM) are not exactly well known for having a good grasp of logic (and biblical exegesis, among many other things), this is just stupid to the nth degree. “Mormonism” would be considered a subset to the broader category of Christianity, which is the perspective of Webb and others, not that they are one to one equivalent (Webb is a Roman Catholic and would consider himself to be a “Christian”; that defeats the nonsense Johnson is imputing to him). Such a comment by Johnson would result in “theist” and “Muslim” being one to one equivalent (of course, this is a straw-man he deceptively foists upon Webb).

Review of Barry Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church

This is from my review of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (2d ed.). I originally posted this on Amazon in late-2013. Enjoy!

I am glad to see this book both back in print and also updated. This work by Dr. Bickmore is a carefully written text comparing Latter-day Saint theology and that of the patristic literature in the early Church, showing that the "Mormon" understanding of issues such as Christology, baptism, posthumous salvation, and other important, debated topics taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith onwards has support in Patristic literature, albeit in varying degrees (some strong and explicit, such as baptismal regeneration, subordination of the Son to the Father; theosis, and others with some evidence, such as a divine feminine). Alongside providing and exegeting patristic literature, and giving careful references to the pertinent sources, Bickmore does a good job at providing some biblical evidences for LDS belief, most notably in the opening pages showing that the LDS understanding of the nature of the apostasy and predicted restoration of Christ's gospel has meaningful support from the biblical texts, too.

The major update to this work is that it includes a paper Barry presented to the FAIR (now FairMormon) conference in 1999 responding to Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid's article critiquing the LDS view of the apostasy. In this chapter, as with previous ones, Bickmore provides copious evidence from "Jewish-Christianity" on various doctrinal issues which should be read with care, as it refutes the arguments of critics such as Madrid and others (including many Protestants) on issues that, theologically, separate Latter-day Saints with so-called "Orthodox Christianity."

This book should be read by LDS and non-LDS alike; for the LDS, especially the apologist and scholar, as a good reference work on patristic evidence for Latter-day Saint theology and practices, and for the non-LDS to read a good, carefully researched and written study of the Apostasy and Restoration from an informed Latter-day Saint.

I do have two quibbles with this book--

1. This new edition uses endnotes, not footnotes. In the first edition, it used footnotes, which allow one to read the notes to various points with ease. However, in the revised edition, all the notes are in the back of the book. I hope that in future printings of this book that it will revert back to footnotes.

2. I would have liked if Bickmore dealt with the issue of Mariology (e.g., the origins and development of doctrines such as the perpetual virginity; Immaculate Conception; Bodily Assumption; the early Patristic writers referring to her as the New/Second Eve and how later writers would used such to show her sinlessness, etc). The topic of Mary was an important issue in early Christianity, and especially now in both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and, speaking as a former Catholic and a graduate of a Catholic seminary, *the* greatest evidence of the apostasy of both faiths, especially Roman Catholicism. Of course, the "Mormon" view of Mariology is very similar to modern Protestantism (e.g., a Heldivian view of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, etc [see Eric D. Svendsen, *Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism* for the biblical evidence for such a view).

These issues aside, this is a wonderful book, and I mirror the sentiment of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson in that it is a book I wish I had written, which I think if the highest compliment one can pay to an author.

Did the Shepherd of Hermas teach Creation Ex Nihilo? Responding to Jimmy Akin

Jimmy Akin is a staff member of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organisation (founded by Karl Keating, author of Catholicism and Fundamentalism, a book Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks quoted from a few times in their seminal book from 1992, Offenders for a Word).

In 2010, Catholic Answers published Akin’s book, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church. For the most part, it is an attempt to provide quotations from the Patristic literature to “prove” the antiquity/apostolicity of Catholic dogmas and practices (e.g. Mary’s perpetual virginity; the papacy; priestly absolution). Interestingly, there are no listings for dogmas such as the Bodily Assumption, and for good reason—such was utterly unknown in the early Church (for a scholarly discussion, see Stephen Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption [Oxford, 2003]).

In a section entitled, “Creation out of nothing” (pp. 143-151), Akin attempts to provide patristic quotes that “prove” that the early Church believed in creation ex nihilo. Two such quotes derive from the Shepherd of Hermas (pp. 143-44):

Hermas of Rome

And as I prayed, the heavens were opened, and I saw the woman whom I had desired saluting me from the sky, and saying, “Hail, Hermas!” And looking up to her, I said, “Lady, what are you doing here?” And she answered me, “I have been taken up here to accuse you of your sins before the Lord.” Lady,” said I, “are you to be the subject of my accusation?” No,” said she, “but hear the words which I am going to speak to you. God, who dwells in the heavens, and made out of nothing the things that exist, and multiplied and increased them on account of his holy Church, is angry with you for having sinned against me. [The Shepherd 1:1:1 (c. A.D. 80)].

First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing. He alone is able to contain the whole, but he cannot be contained. Therefore have faith in him, and fear him; and fearing him, exercise self-control. Keep these commands, and you will cast  all wickedness away from you, and put on the strength of righteousness, and live to God, if you keep this commandment. [Ibid., 2:1:1].

The above quotations seem pretty air-tight that the author of The Shepherd of Hermas accepted creation out of nothing. However, is this really the case?

The above texts were quoted by William Lane Craig and Paul Copan in their book, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philisophical, and Scientific Exploration (2004). In what is the best LDS work on creation ex nihilo available at the moment, Blake Ostler responded in his review entitled, “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation Ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought”:

The Shepherd of Hermas. Copan and Craig next cite the Shepherd of Hermas, a Christian text from the middle of the second century (about AD 140). They begin by citing a text from the Mandates: "First, one must believe that God is one and that he has created and organized and made them from the non-existence into existence, and contains all, but alone is uncontained" (πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα, καὶ πάντα χωρῶν, μόνος δὲ ἀχώρητος ὤν).[43] Copan and Craig take this passage to be a clear reference to creation out of nothing because God alone is uncontained whereas matter is contained (CON, p. 128). But such language only means that the scope of God's power is not limited to or contained by his physical presence, whereas matter is so contained. This text carefully uses language that indicates relative non-being, the ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (ek tou mē ontos), rather than absolute negation. Georg Schuttermayr has presented a very detailed study of the use of οὐκ ἐκ ὄντων in early Christian authors and Philo and concluded that one must be careful not to read the notion of creation out of nothing from such language.[44] As Hubler commented,

Once again, ἐκ μὴ ὄντος‚ alone cannot be taken as an absolute denial of material substrate. By itself this phrase is insufficient to carry the burden of a decisive and well-defined position both because ἐκ and ὄν are notoriously equivocal. Ὄν does not necessarily designate material cause, but it can be used temporally. 'Ον does not necessarily refer to absolute non-being, but the non-existence of what later came to be. To read creatio ex nihilo in Hermes [sic] goes far beyond the warrant of the text, which makes no clear claim to the presence or absence of material and provides no discussion of the position.[45]

Copan and Craig also cite the Visions: "God, who dwells in heaven, and created that which is out of non-existence (κτίσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος)."[46] Once again, the technical phrase for relative non-being is used: ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. As we have seen, Aristotle used the phrase ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (ek tou mē ontos) to refer to relative non-being generating new life from parents already existing. Incidentally, it is extremely significant that the first "scriptural" arguments in history to support the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo—formulated by Irenaeus (about AD 185) and Origen (AD 220)—did not cite scriptures from the canon accepted by evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Rather, Irenaeus and Origen cited the Shepherd of Hermas and 2 Maccabees 7:28.[47] The reason they cited these texts is obvious—these writers did not know of any scriptures within the canon that supported the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. It is ironic, therefore, that even these two texts do not teach the dogma of creatio ex nihilo. It is also significant that the Shepherd of Hermas adopted the technical language for creation from the term that describes relative nonbeing—ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος—which makes it fairly clear that God created what is from potential being, not from absolute nothing, or ex nihilo.[48]

Notes for the Above:

[45] Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo," 110.

[46] Shepherd of Hermas, Visions, 1.1.6, cited by Copan and Craig as "1.6" (NMC, p. 429 n. 166) and corrected as 1.1.6 (in CON, p. 127). Author's translation.

[47] See Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.20.2; and Origen, De Principiis 1.3.3 for references to the Shepherd of Hermas.

[48] See Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas, 197.

Ultimately, Akin’s book is just a “quote-book” not too dissimilar to Jurgen’s 3-volume work, Faith of the Early Fathers. My advice would be invest in something such as Schaff’s 10-volume Ante Nicene Fathers (or the entire 38-vol set, including 28 vols dealing with the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) than such works.

The eternality of the Aaronic Priesthood

As with many denominations within the broad Christian spectrum (e.g. Catholics; Eastern Orthodox), Latter-day Saints believe in an ordained priesthood, something I have discussed previously on this blog. One of the more distinctive teachings of the LDS Church is that the Aaroninc Priesthood is operational in this dispensation (alongside the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood). Latter-day Saints believe that the Aaronic Priesthood was restored, through Joseph Smith, by John the Baptist in May 1829. Joseph would later record the words of John the Baptist at this monumental event, which one can find in D&C 13, which also succinctly lists the duties and roles of this Priesthood:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again and offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Opponents of LDS theology often point to Heb 7:12 as “proof” that Christ’s atoning sacrifice and resurrection resulted in the cessation of the Aaronic Priesthood. However, it this the case? The verse reads:

For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

In the KJV, the term “change(d)” appears twice, but the underlying Greek words are different. The term μεταθεσις is used with respect to the change of the law. This term means “to change.” However, with respect to the Priesthood, the Greek term is μεταθιτημι, which often means “to transfer” (e.g. in the sense of transposition). Note the other instances of this term in the New Testament where it has this meaning:

And [the bodies of Jacob et al.] were carried over (μεταθιτημι) into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16)

By faith Enoch was translated (μεταθιτημι) that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated (μεταθιτημι) him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5)

There is no exegetical warrant to the claim that Heb 7:12 means the Aaronic Priesthood was abrogated. Koine Greek has several words the author of Hebrews (IMO, the author of Luke-Acts) could have used if he wished to convey this meaning, but he didn’t.

That the Aaronic Priesthood was understood to be “eternal” and not just temporal to the time of the Law of Moses can be seen in texts such as Exo 40:15:

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

The Hebrew term translated in the KJV as "eternal" is  עוֹלָ֖ם; the LXX uses αιων. This is coupled with the phrase, "throughout their generations," offering strong evidence of the perpetual, not temporal, nature of the Aaronic Priesthood. A priesthood that was annulled in AD 30 is hardly "eternal." Furthermore, do note that, unlike circumcision and the dietary food laws which were revealed to be annulled (e.g., Acts 10 and 15), such is never said of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Of course, Latter-day Saints have explicit Scriptural warrant for their theology of the Aaronic Priesthood from modern revelation (e.g. D&C 107), but there is good exegetical warrant from the Bible for this, too.

Mosiah 8:9, "pure gold," and the composition of the Book of Mormon Plates

In Mosiah 8:9, we read of the twenty-four plates of the people of Limhi and that they were made of “pure gold.” Some opponents of the Church (e.g. Bill McKeever) claim that this disproves the claim by LDS scholars and apologists that the plates of the Book of Mormon were tumbaga, a Mesoamerican alloy of gold and copper. They reason that, as some LDS apologists claim that plates composed only of gold would not be suited for engraving and is one evidence of the plates that Joseph Smith translated were an alloy, this verse disproves such a contention from the Book of Mormon itself.

The locution “pure gold” appears a number of times in the Old Testament (e.g. Exo 25:11, 17, 24, 29, 31, 36, 38, 39). The term translated as “pure” is טָהוֹר which means “pure” in the sense of “clean” (that is how it is used in Mal 1:11 with reference to the New Covenant sacrifice which would be a “clean” oblation). It does not necessitate any mixture of metals (an alloy), only that the gold used in the composition of the plates was “pure” or “clean” gold.

Suggested Reading on Tumbaga and the Book of Mormon Plates

 Read H. Putnam, Were the Golden Plates Made of Tumbaga?

Malin L. Jacobs and John A. Tvedntes, Weight of the Gold Plates