Blogging Through the Book of Mormon

Paul’s contrast of the Christian faith with the Epicurean philosophy notes that the main difference between the two is belief in the resurrection. Christianity without a belief in the resurrection would just be “eat, drink, and be merry.” But Paul also recognizes that the concept of someone being risen from the dead can be a difficult thing to understand, especially for people who had never been taught the principle before. Understandably, they must have asked him some specific questions, or at least, he understood that they would have specific questions about the how, when, where, what, and who about the resurrection. As far as the “how” and “what” goes, Paul asks then answers, “how are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” During this time people died so much younger, more often, and much more publicly than they do these days. It’s possible that some people imagined decayed corpses walking around as “resurrected” being, or dancing skeletons or something like that. ...

If the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the pinnacle of the atonement is going to be given to every person who ever lived on the earth, that highlights the disparity between those who have received the gospel in this life and those who have not. For anyone who loves and values the gospel, our deepest desire is to share the joy the gospel brings us with all of our friends and family. It has been long taught by many religions that those who died without the chance to accept their certain brand of religion or be baptized into their church, are going to hell. But this concept flies in the face of God’s love of each and every one of his children. If I believed for one second that there were certain people sometime in human history whom God did not plan on redeeming, I could not believe in this gospel at all, ever. Because if God could forsake even one person, then he could do it to me, and the God that I know and love could not stand to lose even one of his spirit children without giving th...

But wait! Christ was resurrected! It doesn't matter what would have happened without his resurrection, because He lives! He was "the firstfruits of them that slept." The term "firstfruits" comes from the law of Moses that required every farmer to "dedicate his first sheaf of grain as an offering to the Lord in acknowledgment that He is the source of all blessings," according to the IM. The IM continues, "Just as farmers' first-fruits were the earliest of many crops to be harvested, Jesus Christ was the first of all beings to be resurrected, thereby opening the way for all of the inhabitants of the world to similarly be raised from the dead."  I had never understood this because I thought that other people had been resurrected before Jesus, like Lazarus and other people that had been risen from the dead. But the difference is that those raised from the dead through the power of the priesthood were not raised to immortality, but just resto...

I was reading the article on this chapter from  gospeldoctrine.com  and it gave an excellent explanation about why there is such a difficult time with people accepting the resurrection, whether it be the saints in Corinth or the Sadducees. The article says, “the resurrection is something to which the world cannot relate empirically; it has to be understood by faith and by the Holy Ghost. Consequently it is not readily accepted or believed in the world. Paul’s magnificent statement about the resurrection recorded in 1 Cor. 15 apparently was written to convince the intellectuals of his day, those who trusted in reason, that the resurrection was logical, spiritual, and necessary. He said that his knowledge of the resurrection came by revelation but that the doctrine was reasonable even so. The testimony of the scriptures and of the Holy Ghost is that the resurrection of Jesus, and eventually of all mankind, is literal, historical, and factual truth.” I don’t know how I was loo...

I really struggle with a lot of what Paul says, not because I disagree but because I can’t understand it. Chapter 15 is very much like that for me because all of these ideas that he’s discussing seem to be so random that I can’t really follow from one context to the next. The IM is very helpful with background information going into chapter 15 saying, “It had been reported to Paul that some individuals in Corinth were teaching that there was no Resurrection of the dead. As one of the many eyewitnesses of the risen Lord, the Apostle Paul clearly and powerfully taught the Corinthian branch about the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and of all mankind.” With all the different information in these writings, it’s difficult for me to remember that all of this is in response to specific issues brought to Paul’s attention in incoming letters. Paul must know that this epistle is winding down so he’s probably trying to tie it all together, so with that background information, it make...

In review, the gift of tongues is given to believers in order to teach others the gospel. And while it is a good gift to have if you need it, it is better to edify those around you, even if it is in your natural language. If we consider it from that perspective, then Paul’s next words will make a little bit more sense. He’s been teaching that it is better to edify others than to teach in tongues, but then he says that the scriptures teach, “men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people.” If someone else speaks to the saints in a language that is unknown to the speaker, then it will edify and be known to his audience, so that would be a proper use of the gift of tongues. But Paul continues, “wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” I really didn’t understand this at all, but the more that I thought about it, I had some ideas about what it might mean. If the gift of tongues is for people to hear the gospel in their ...

The more I think about the concept of the gift of tongues, the more I realize that it has all the potential to be the flashy "gift" that can make you appear very spiritually strong to others, but in turn does almost nothing to benefit them. Paul says that if someone is going to speak or pray in "an unknown tongue," they need to also pray that the words can be understood, otherwise it will be "unfruitful." The whole purpose of spiritual gifts is to uplift others and help us grow spiritually but putting on a show so others can see your "strength" isn't doing either one of those things. If you pray and no one can understand you, "how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" Paul makes an interesting statement and we have to read it remembering that he was highly educated in not only worldly knowledge, but he's a scriptorian as well. He sa...