The Fullness of the Gospel

Kullervo
February 8, 2007
https://byzantium.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/the-fullness-of-the-gospel/

Richard Bushman, a prominent Mormon scholar, recently did a series of interviews in which he
takes the position that when the Book of Mormon claims to contain “the fullness of the gospel,”
it is only referring to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, i.e. his atonement and our salvation through
him. I have met Brother Bushman and have a lot of respect for him, but this is a bit of rhetoric
that doesn’t deal with the Book of Mormon’s real doctrinal problems.

Interpreting “the fullness of the gospel” to mean “just Jesus Christ’s atonement” is just that, an
interpretation. It’s fairly unsupported in any kind of canonical way, and it certainly runs counter
to the common Mormon meaning of “gospel.” Almost without exception, when Mormons refer
to the “fullness of the gospel,” they are referring to the entire set of revealed truths pertaining to
God and His kingdom (ninth article of faith-style), which does include Jesus Christ’s atonement,
but it is certainly not limited to it.

Furthermore, it dodges the problem of doctrine in the Book of Mormon, which is that if the
ancient Nephite prophets had the Melchizidek priesthood, knew Jesus Christ, and taught “the
gospel in its fullness,” why is there no mention of eternal progression, eternal marriage, baptism
for the dead, degrees of glory, or the pre-mortal life?

In other words, why did these ancient prophets ultimately have no better grasp of God’s truth
than did “apostate” Christians of the 19th century? One possibility is that these doctrines were
known but not made public, i.e. known by Nephite prophets but not circulated among the
population at large because of their hard-heartedness. That doesn’t make sense to me,
though. First, even if that was the case, the Book of Mormon was more or less a secret record,
directed at modern people, not something like Paul’s epistles or Isaiah’s prophecies that were
meant for common consumption by contemporary believers. So if the Nephite prophets had
known these doctrines but needed to keep them quiet, they could have certainly inscribed them
on the golden plates. Second, there were major periods in Nephite history when the people were
almost completely righteous, in particular the period right after Jesus Christ’s visit, i.e. the period
covered by the book Fourth Nephi. In Fourth Nephi we have what is supposedly a post-
Atonement Christian community, living in peace and harmony and led by living prophets for
over one hundred years. There’s absolutely no reason why fundamental doctrines concerning the
Plan of Salvation would not have been revealed, taught, and widely written and spoken
about. These are not “deep” doctrines. They’re not sacred truths too holy to be discussed
outside of temple walls; they’re the stuff of sunday school lessons and sacrament meeting talks.

The Book of Mormon teaches clearly about the period between death and the resurrection (if I
recall, in Alma’s letter to his son Corianton), so why not the rest of Heavenly Father’s great plan
of happiness? The plan itself is mentioned several times, so why are there virtually no details
given?

One could possibly argue that these were special doctrines that were to be revealed only in the
dispensation of the fullness of times. But if that is the case, why does the Mormon church teach
that when Paul was talking about being “baptized for the dead” in First Corinthians, that he was
specifically referencing this doctrine? Or when he mentions “the third heaven” that he is talking
about the Celestial Kingdom? If the early Christian church in Paul’s time (factionalizing and
apostatizing though it supposedly was) knew these doctrines, shouldn’t the Nephites have known
them?

If “the fullness of the gospel” is just Jesus Christ’s atonement, which we can read about fairly
clearly in the New Testament, then what plain and precious truths were taken out of the Bible by
the “great and abominable church” according to First Nephi chapter 13? If they were the
characteristically Mormon doctrines like baptism for the dead, eternal progression, etc., then that
means that the prophets and apostles of the Bible knew these doctrines, and wrote them, but they
were taken out. Did the Nephite prophets know less about the truths of God then the prophets
and apostles of the Bible? That’s certainly not the impression I get from reading the Book of
Mormon. If they knew all these doctrines, these “plain and precious truths” that are so important
in God’s plan, why didn’t they write them for us to read? Why are these fundamental truths not
in the Book of Mormon anywhere?

The simplest, albeit most cynical, answer is that Joseph Smith had not made those doctrines up
yet, so he could not have written them into the Book of Mormon.