Journey’s End - Derek Hegsted
The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship website has shared a quote from Hugh Nibley on their homepage today:
The word atonement appears only once in the New Testament, but 127 times in the Old Testament. . . . In the other Standard Works of the Church, atonement (including related terms atone, atoned, atoneth, atoning) appears 44 times, but only 3 times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and twice in the Pearl of Great Price. The other 39 times are all in the Book of Mormon. This puts the Book of Mormon in the milieu of the old Hebrew rites before the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, for after that the Ark and the covering (kapporeth) no longer existed, but the Holy of Holies was still called the bait ha-kapporeth. . . . It has often been claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot contain the ‘fullness of the gospel,’ since it does not have temple ordinances. As a matter of fact, they are everywhere in the book if we know where to look for them, and the dozen or so discourses on the Atonement in the Book of Mormon are replete with temple imagery. From all the meanings of kaphar and kippurim, we concluded that the literal meaning of kaphar and kippurim is a close and intimate embrace, which took place at the kapporeth, or the front cover or flap of the tabernacle or tent. The Book of Mormon instances are quite clear, for example, ‘Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you’ (Alma 5:33). ‘But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love’ (2 Nephi 1:15). To be redeemed is to be atoned. From this it should be clear what kind of oneness is meant by the Atonement—it is being received in a close embrace of the prodigal son. (Nibley, Approaching Zion, 566-67)
Again, a most excellent post!!!!!
If we know what we are looking for, it’s amazing what we find.
-David
This is a great website! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Since the first time I went through the temple I’ve had questions about where things in the ceremonies originated and why we did them. I look forward to more posts from you.
thanks.
http://www.graceforgrace.com
Was Nibley saying in the beginning that the Book of Mormon has support since it mentions “atonement” multiple times and purports to be from Old Testament times in the beginning?
Interesting stuff!
I have always liked what Nibley says regarding the Temple and the Book of Mormon:
“In the temple we are taught by symbols and examples; but that is not the fullness of the gospel. One very popular argument today says, “Look, you say the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, but it doesn’t contain any of the temple ordinances in it, does it?’ Ordinances are not the fullness of the gospel. Going to the temple is like entering into a laboratory to confirm what you have already in the classroom and from the text. The fullness of the gospel is the understanding of what the plan is all about – the knowledge necessary to salvation. You know the whys and wherefores; FOR THE FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL YOU GO TO NEPHI, TO ALMA, TO MORONI. Then you will enter into the lab, but not in total ignorance.” (Nibley Hugh, Temple and Cosmos pg 26.)
I like the idea here, that the Temple is a place for us to better understand what we already know, what we come to understand as we study God’s revealed word give us from prophets in all ages. This is why the I believe that Joseph Smith literally meant what he said: ” I told the brethren the the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”