The Bible's Plain and Precious Things

[Joseph Antley]

First of all, I apologize if this isn't too coherent. I'm running on little sleep, but I thought about this last night and wanted to see what others thought.

According to the Book of Mormon, many "plain and precious things" were taken away from the Bible by that "great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:28). Afterward, the Bible circulated among the Gentile nations and made it across the "many waters" (13:29), and because of the removal of the "plain and precious things," it caused many of the Gentiles to stumble and enter into an "awful state of blindness" (13:29, 32). Nephi states that the "plain and precious things" were "plain unto the understanding of the children of men" (13:29). As a result of the G&A Church removing these things, the Lord will bring forth many things that are "plain and precious" through the Book of Mormon (13:35), and then later records will also "make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away" (13:40).

The traditional interpretation of the G&A Church removing the "plain and precious things" from the Bible is basically what Joseph Smith said occurred during the transmission of the text: "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, 327). Maybe more emphasis on the corrupt priests. We imagine malevolent students of Satan meticulously removing parts of the Bible that they didn't like. Doctrines like Christian temple work, exaltation, the pre-existence, Gethsemane, the Spirit World, etc., were probably all in the original Bibles, but the G&A Church clipped them out.

The obvious problem is that the Book of Mormon states this happened post-NT. This editing occurred during the Christian era, the BoM text says. But there's no evidence that any mass editing of the Bible occurred during this time period, and, IMHO, much to the contrary. Evil Jews didn't remove overt references to Christ from the OT. Not to say that there weren't massive editings and redactions of the OT; but these were complete, for the vastly greatest part, prior to the Christian era.

As for the NT, the Book of Mormon specifically gives the book of Revelation as an example. Nephi notes that the Revelation of John "at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men" (14:23), implying that the plain and precious things of John's Revelation were removed as well. However, there's no evidence for any overt editing of the book of Revelation in its early stages that would make it significantly less easy to understand.

I think that maybe we're misunderstanding Nephi. "Things" is an ambiguous word, and it might be significant that Nephi/Joseph Smith use the word "things" instead of "passages," "verses," or "words." Maybe the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible--and which the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Gospel helped to restore--weren't actually passages of text cut out by the Great and Abominable Church. Maybe, as perhaps with the Book of Revelation, it was just the book's easiness to understand that they removed. If this is the case, then John's first readers correctly understood the symbolism of his text, but that plain interpretation was lost when the book went into the hands of the G&A Church.

If that's the case, then it wasn't that the Harlot of all the earth removed the plainest passages of the Bible and only left us the confusing parts. Instead, the Great and Abominable Church changed the lens through which every generation of future Christians would view the parts of the Bible. The "plain and precious things" that were taken away weren't actual passages of text; rather they were the plain teachings of Jesus and the Apostles through which the Bible was to be understood.

The corrupt lens of the Great and Abominable Church led to false doctrines on the Trinity, baptism, ordinances, salvation, the afterlife, etc., the truths of which Latter-day Saints see clearly in the Bible, but which aren't plain to non-LDS Christians. Jesus' teaching that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" didn't change. The G&A Church didn't edit that verse out of the Bible. But they did eventually remove the plain and precious way of understanding it.

Critics often ask, if the BoM is the most correct book, what does it teach that the Bible doesn't? If it's the case that the G&A Church didn't actually remove doctrinal passages from the Bible but instead removed the plain way of understanding the passages still in the Bible, then the significance of the Book of Mormon is that it restores the plain and precious things needed to plainly and correctly interpret the Bible. It's not new or radical doctrines that make the Book of Mormon so important; rather, it's that the Book of Mormon provides the restitution of a plain understanding of the Gospel.

I'm not contending that biblical passages weren't altered, even during the early Christian era. There's solid evidence that that occurred. But I don't think it occurred enough to merit the prophecies of the Book of Mormon, and I think this interpretation makes much more sense when considering the total context of the Book of Mormon as well as the textual transmission of the Bible.

[volgadon]

If that's the case, then it wasn't that the Harlot of all the earth removed the plainest passages of the Bible and only left us the confusing parts. Instead, the Great and Abominable Church changed the lens through which every generation of future Christians would view the parts of the Bible. The "plain and precious things" that were taken away weren't actual passages of text; rather they were the plain teachings of Jesus and the Apostles through which the Bible was to be understood.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The oral teachings took precedence over writings, which were things to be interpreted.

[Doug the Hutt]

heya Joseph,

1. I'm going to take a contrary position (one I'm finding harder and harder to ignore) -- the 19th century author of the religious fiction known as the Book of Mormon used the notion of "plain & precious parts" of the Bible being removed as a pretext to insert himself as modern pseudo-savior, and used that position of authority to benefit himself economically, socially, politically and sexually.

2. I think the idea of a lens being changed displaces legitimacy because this "lens", no matter what the text you're reading, now takes the form of whatever you want or need it to be. If the ancient text reads one thing and you're doing exactly the opposite you either:

a) recognize the legitimacy of the ancient words, forsake the thing you're doing that's opposite and repent. This has the tendency to weaken a claim of authority.

b) usurp authority of the old texts by asserting that your current "lens" is the correct interpretation despite what a flat reading of the old text reads. This has the tendency to confirm your bias but does little to get to the real truth.

And if you're doing what the text flatly says then why can't you use that same flat reading of the text on those other parts that you used a secondary set of rules for interpretation? I think the "lens" argument reveals hypocracy and convenience, not *the real truth* (I am certainly not calling you a hypocrite -- just fleshing out the logic). Just my .0000002 cents.

[thesometimesaint]

Doug the Hutt:

Did you get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[volgadon]

b) usurp authority of the old texts by asserting that your current "lens" is the correct interpretation despite what a flat reading of the old text reads. This has the tendency to confirm your bias but does little to get to the real truth.

And if you're doing what the text flatly says then why can't you use that same flat reading of the text on those other parts that you used a secondary set of rules for interpretation? I think the "lens" argument reveals hypocracy and convenience, not *the real truth* (I am certainly not calling you a hypocrite -- just fleshing out the logic). Just my .0000002 cents.

The "flat reading" does not show that textual emmandations and excisions are meant. Rather that has been the assumption of most readers.

[Joseph Antley]

heya Joseph,

1. I'm going to take a contrary position (one I'm finding harder and harder to ignore) -- the 19th century author of the religious fiction known as the Book of Mormon used the notion of "plain & precious parts" of the Bible being removed as a pretext to insert himself as modern pseudo-savior, and used that position of authority to benefit himself economically, socially, politically and sexually.

Hey Doug. I thought it was clear from my post, but the obvious premise of this thread is that the Book of Mormon is actually a translation of--or is at least derived from--an ancient record.

2. I think the idea of a lens being changed displaces legitimacy because this "lens", no matter what the text you're reading, now takes the form of whatever you want or need it to be. If the ancient text reads one thing and you're doing exactly the opposite you either:

a) recognize the legitimacy of the ancient words, forsake the thing you're doing that's opposite and repent. This has the tendency to weaken a claim of authority.

b) usurp authority of the old texts by asserting that your current "lens" is the correct interpretation despite what a flat reading of the old text reads. This has the tendency to confirm your bias but does little to get to the real truth.

And if you're doing what the text flatly says then why can't you use that same flat reading of the text on those other parts that you used a secondary set of rules for interpretation?

Again, this is written from a Latter-day Saint viewpoint, and thus includes the premises that 1) the Book of Mormon is true; 2) the doctrines of the LDS Church are correct; and 3) the Bible is inspired.

I think the "lens" argument reveals hypocracy and convenience, not *the real truth* (I am certainly not calling you a hypocrite -- just fleshing out the logic). Just my .0000002 cents.

I would agree with you if I were providing the "'lens' argument" as a simple justification for LDS interpretation of biblical texts. But that's not what I was doing. I provided the "'lens' argument" to be an interpretation of 1 Nephi 13 that reconciles all of the above provided premises, along with the historical problems I mentioned in my OP.

Best!

[LeSellers]

Just my .0000002 cents.

And not worth even that.

Lehi

[Glenn101]

The Joseph Smith Translation is possible evidence that there have been things changed in the New Testament and removed from the New Testament. I say possible because we do not know if what Joseph did was an inspired expansion/clarification of the texts or if he was actually restoring things to their correct translation.

Matthew chapter 24 comes to mind as well as the first chapter of John. John chapter 24 does not contain the phrase "God is a spirit".

Hopefully my two cents worth is valued as such.

Glenn

[LeSellers]

Hopefully my two cents worth is valued as such.

Are they real copper or copper-coated zinc?

I'd say copper, but I've been accused of bias.

Lehi

[Doug the Hutt]

Doug the Hutt:

Did you get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Funny you mention it -- I slept on the floor...

[Thunderfire]

One thing I was given to ponder is this...in many ways, the actual text was not changed, but the interpretation had. Meaning, we can go back and find that much of the text today is pretty accurate when compared to ancient manuscripts. What changed was in word usage and meaning. What changed was the plain and precious interpretation of what the original was seeking to convey and how passages were "wrestled and twisted" to make it say what the people wanted it to say.

So the real blessing of the Book of Mormon was a "restoration" of the plain and precious message in a very clear way! Anyway, just something to consider.

[Flyonthewall]

I agree with the OP, and came to the same conclusion while either participating in discussions here or viewing them, that words may not have changed but the meaning given to them has.

[Joseph Antley]

One thing I was given to ponder is this...in many ways, the actual text was not changed, but the interpretation had. Meaning, we can go back and find that much of the text today is pretty accurate when compared to ancient manuscripts. What changed was in word usage and meaning. What changed was the plain and precious interpretation of what the original was seeking to convey and how passages were "wrestled and twisted" to make it say what the people wanted it to say.

So the real blessing of the Book of Mormon was a "restoration" of the plain and precious message in a very clear way! Anyway, just something to consider.

Isn't that basically what I said in the OP? Or are you arguing something different?

[Glenn101]

Are they real copper or copper-coated zinc?

I'd say copper, but I've been accused of bias.

Lehi

My pennies are copper. It's my nickels that are suspect.

Glenn

[Thunderfire]

Isn't that basically what I said in the OP? Or are you arguing something different?

Please forgive me for the confusion. You mentioned that you wrote the OP late at night with little sleep. I had 50 million things going on around me as I responded. When I first read it, I kept seeing comments about the actual text being "re-written" and changed which I was disagreeing with. But when I went back and re-read it, we were basically saying the same thing. Again, please forgive me. I think you are right on with your comments! (besides the fact that we were in agreement)

[Vance]

Time for a faith promoting rumor.

When I was on my mission I heard of an individual who believed in the Bible. He accepted the challenge to read the Book of Mormon.

He read it once and was unimpressed. So he read it a second time. Still unimpressed.

Then he started reading the New Testament again. To his surprise, he found that the text of the Bible to be far more enlightening than ever before. He found that the Bible taught the same doctrines as the LDS Church.

What changed was not the text of the Bible, but his ability to actually understand it.

[Kevin Christensen]

I like Barker's "Text and Context", on the transmission of Hebrew scripture as a unintentional but serendipitous commentary on 1 Nephi 13 on the plain and precious things.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

"Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the

texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use,

and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that the texts which became

the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins."

In Deuteronomy 32 the Qumran texts are significantly different from the MT. The Qumran text of

Deuteronomy 32.8 says that the Most High divided out the nations of the earth according to

[semlogo]

I've heard some claim that the sermon on the mount was edited after the fact to include some jabs at Paul. No idea if that's true.

[Jason]

I'm not sure that the BoM is clearly saying that all of the editing occurred in the post-New Testament era.

[urroner]

I like Barker's "Text and Context", on the transmission of Hebrew scripture as a unintentional but serendipitous commentary on 1 Nephi 13 on the plain and precious things.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, I've been reading Barker's "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" and the more I read her writings, the more I realize that the context that the scriptures were written in can be more important to the understanding of the scriptures than the text.

And now, when I read 2 Nephi 25:1, it rings even truer to me:

Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were ahard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

BTW, "Text and Context" is a great paper.

[BCSpace]

Critics often ask, if the BoM is the most correct book, what does it teach that the Bible doesn't?

The BoM certainly doesn't contain all doctrine and doesn't claim such, but there are many many things therein which the Bible does not include or only alludes to. 2 Nephi 2 for example. Or Alma 13.

[daz2]

The New Testament, as we know it, did not exist in New Testament times, and much of it was not written until the second century. The composition of the New Testament canon evolved over time. Similarly, the composition of the Old Testament was not a static thing.

In my mind, the "corruption" of the Bible included changes in transmission over time, such as the Deuteronomist retelling of the foundational stories of Israelite religion. I personally believe that either the Deteronomists or others put spins on thos stories to make them a bit propagandist: e.g., overstating the iniquity of Israel's enemies, overstating the power and the viciousness of Israelite armies. I understand there is little evidence that the genicidal stories of the O.T. actually occurred in the settling of Israel. Perhaps they were added or "spun", again, to emphasize the power of Israel.

I also suspect that in selecting the canon over time, something like today's correlation process occurred. That is, the selection and editing process was influenced by what was then thought to be doctrine. Given the strength of Rome and the close links of between the church and state that had developed, it is no surprise that Paul's writings emphasizing duty to submit to secular rulers were included. Or that the versions of the gospel's selected downplayed the Roman involvement in Jesus' crucifixion and emphasized the role of Jewish leaders (who were still personas non grata to Roman rulers).

[steelyray]

I'm not sure that the BoM is clearly saying that all of the editing occurred in the post-New Testament era.

Then when exactly did it take place? The letters and gospels in the New Testament were sent to churches all over the Roman world. Editing them before the collation would've taken a rather monumental effort to organize the disparate churches, which could not have taken place before Constantine essentially forced the church bishops to get together in the Nicene councils. Furthermore, we don't see any historical evidence of them removing any of these 'plain and precious things.' We see them battling the Gnostics, the stoics, the Montanists, the Arians, all of whose doctrines the church would no doubt also seek to completely suppress, but absolute silence in the way of any of the early church, canonized or heretical, having ever taught that God the Father was once like a man.

The claim is identical to that of the Muslim claim that the NT was grossly changed to point away from Islam. There's no good reason to believe them and there's no good reason to believe this either.

"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." -Thomas Jefferson

[Jason]

Then when exactly did it take place?

"After it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew".

I see that as meaning that individual books could have been altered from the moment they were first communicated.

The claim is identical to that of the Muslim claim that the NT was grossly changed to point away from Islam. There's no good reason to believe them and there's no good reason to believe this either.

Unless one has other proofs that Islam is the truth.

[Joseph Antley]

"After it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew".

I see that as meaning that individual books could have been altered from the moment they were first communicated.

The BoM specifically says,

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away." (1 Nephi 13:26)