The Bible's Plain and Precious Things

[volgadon]

AAlso note that it is the gospel of the Lamb that they are taking away from. That would explain the covenants, becuase removing them from a book makes no sense.

[steelyray]

If they were altered that fast then what gives you the certainty that the same didn't happen to the BoM? You have exactly as much evidence of somebody altering its words as soon as they were spoken, (which is to say, none at all). Or should we rather go on to the facts, like that the BoM was of course altered many times by its publishers?

Your case is non-existent and ludicrous.

[Kevin Christensen]

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

1 Nephi 13 places the removal of the plain and precious things in the period immediately after the loss of the apostles (late first century). Resistance to the apostles is apparent in the NT we have. Other BM passages (Jacob 4:14, for example), refer to pre-exilic action on the scripture, specifically "blindness" and "looking beyond the mark." LDS don't need to look to a single time period or agent.

The best to ways to avoid seeing the evidence of the loss of "plain and precious things" are

(1) to start by insisting that nothing was lost. This saves endless trouble.

(2) look in the wrong period (Constantine's time, for example, when the prophecy points to an earlier period.) See Stephen Robinson's reading of 1 Nephi 13 and the recent FARMS Volume on Early Christians in Disarray, especially Noel Reynold's excellent starting essay.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=168 for Robinson, who argued for a mid second century Hellenizing.

Such an agent would have had its origins in the second half of the first century and would have done much of its work by the middle of the second century.

This period might be called the blind spot in Christian history, for it is here that the fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. We have good sources for New Testament Christianity; then the lights go out, so to speak, and we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture and Christianity has become something very different from what it was in the beginning. That different entity can accurately be described as hellenized Christianity.

The hellenization of Christianity is a phenomenon that scholars of Christian history have long recognized. Hellenization refers to the imposition of Greek culture and philosophy upon the cultures of the East. The result was a synthesis of East and West, a melting pot of popular culture that was virtually worldwide. In the realm of religion, however, synthesis means compromise, and when we speak in terms of the gospel, compromise with popular beliefs means apostasy from the truth.

But also see Reynolds, who argues for an even earlier aspect of the apostasy.

The scriptures of the restoration make it clear that ordinances such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and marriage are all based in covenants between men and God. Those receiving the ordinance have made certain covenants with God to turn away from their sins and obey his commandments, and God in turn makes promises to them. The ordinance provides a public witness of these covenants.5 What we had not previously realized is that when the second-century Christians redefined these ordinances as sacraments, they had already abandoned their covenantal understanding of the ordinances. There were significant efforts by some key thinkers in the Protestant Reformation to restore those covenantal understandings to the ordinances, but these all failed. Reinvented as sacraments, the ordinances were understood in traditional Christianity as the means by which God could bless a person with an infusion of divine grace, through the mediation of the priest. Once the covenantal understanding was lost, it made sense to bless everyone possible. So how could traditional Christianity deny baptism to infants if the recipient no longer was expected to be making a meaningful covenant in connection with that ordinance? A similar analysis applies to Christian sacraments such as last rites. This helps us understand what Nephi meant when he explained the apostasy by saying that "many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:26).

This volume of essays reports new research by several LDS scholars in different fields which we hope will be useful in helping Latter-day Saints understand the apostasy better. The authors identify several common myths and misconceptions that Latter-day Saints have about the apostasy and help us understand the falling away from Christ's church more accurately and completely. They argue that the Christian apostasy occurred sometime during the first century

[David T]

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)

Personally, I think there's two layers going on there. The original exilic-era layer (from Nephi Prime), and a post-Christian era layer redacted on top of it, whether by a Post-Christian Nephite (3 Nephi?), or (most likely) Joseph Smith.

I can easily see an original reference to writings of 12 (symbolic number?) prophetic figures going into the Exilic Greek/Roman era, where Jerusalem was overtaken by politics, and the Temple/Government /Priesthood became completely corrupted (G&A Church). It was exactly how the Qumran community viewed things.

And the later generation saw the same pattern, but applied (with an adaptation of terminology) to the post-apostolic era.

[Zakuska]

One has to wonder why the Bible prophecies of another book coming forth in the later days by the hand of an angel.

Rev 10

1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, 3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel

[Joseph Antley]

Personally, I think there's two layers going on there. The original exilic-era layer (from Nephi Prime), and a post-Christian era layer redacted on top of it, whether by a Post-Christian Nephite (3 Nephi?), or (most likely) Joseph Smith.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. Would it be possible to do a Jesus Seminar-type analysis of the Book of Mormon text, where we seek to identify the passages, phrases, or words that most clearly represent the ancient record (or "Nephi Prime," as you put it), and those that more represent later 19th century interpretations/additions/interpolations?

[steelyray]

1 Nephi 13 places the removal of the plain and precious things in the period immediately after the loss of the apostles (late first century). Resistance to the apostles is apparent in the NT we have. Other BM passages (Jacob 4:14, for example), refer to pre-exilic action on the scripture, specifically "blindness" and "looking beyond the mark." LDS don't need to look to a single time period or agent.

The best to ways to avoid seeing the evidence of the loss of "plain and precious things" are

(1) to start by insisting that nothing was lost. This saves endless trouble.

(2) look in the wrong period (Constantine's time, for example, when the prophecy points to an earlier period.) See Stephen Robinson's reading of 1 Nephi 13 and the recent FARMS Volume on Early Christians in Disarray, especially Noel Reynold's excellent starting essay.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=168 for Robinson, who argued for a mid second century Hellenizing.

But also see Reynolds, who argues for an even earlier aspect of the apostasy.

See http://maxwellinstit...d=42&chapid=201

(3) Ignore essays Barker's "Text and Context" (linked previously) and "The Secret Tradition" and books on the New Testament textual transmission like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

http://www.margaretb...etTradition.pdf

(4) argue from distant analogy rather than direct evidence. This means you don't have to read in context, which, as Urroner has just noted, can change everything.

(5) demand early evidence of the esoteric "hot button" LDS doctrines, rather than fundamental things like the centrality of temple and covenant.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

The 'hellenization of Christianity' is a red herring to the issue. It refers more to the reduction of Jewish identity and influence in Christian development over time, and to the inclusion of formalized logic to religious study, leading to formalized, systematic theology, an altar to which LDS apologists bow each and every day in their attempts to defend Mormonism by means of reason. That an apologist would rile against 'hellenization' is to simply saw off the branch he's sitting on, for it is the adoption of Greek approaches to logic out of which his arguments come to have any structure or meaning.

Clement wrote in his 'Stromata,' "thus philosophy acted as a schoolmaster to the Greek, preparing them for Christ, as the laws of the Jews prepared them for Christ."

My argument here is very simple. The orthodox church, even in the earliest days of its existence, could not completely silence the Gnostics, whose teaching is referred to in the Bible itself by Paul, nor could it completely silence the other earliest heresies, so why is there a complete and total absence of any evidence of the removal of any Mormon teaching? How could the orthodox church be so effective at wiping out specifically Mormon teachings but be so inept at wiping out the teaching of every other heretic off the pages of history? We do know about quite a few teachings of quite a few sects, and you'd think that such a major concept as God the Father himself having once been a man would've had at least a few faithful followers or at least some heretical spinoffs? Nada from the Elcesaites, zippo from the Nazarenes, nothing from the Ebionites, zero from the Cerinthians. Zilch.

Also, we find in Acts clear instructions given to the first Gentile church over what customs they should adopt as converts, whether or not they should be circumcised, how much of the law should be kept, etc. Acts 15:28-29 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.'

Nothing about ritual handshakes, nothing about wearing holy undergarments, nothing about baptisms for the dead, nothing about God having been an exalted man, etc. It is an utterly foreign concept to anything you can find in either Jewish, Christian, or the writings of the earliest heresies, which came much earlier than the time of Constantine, BTW.

If these things were indeed included from the times of the earliest prophets, you might found some evidence of them in the various Jewish sects as well, might you? But nothing in the Pharisaic tradition, that of the Sadducees, the Nazerites, or the Essenes or by any group noted by any Jewish historian at the time points to any teaching resembling God ever having once been like a man. Who removed them, and why didn't any righteous person ever succeed in preserving them? Why aren't they included in the plates that Nephi recovered?

[David T]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. Would it be possible to do a Jesus Seminar-type analysis of the Book of Mormon text, where we seek to identify the passages, phrases, or words that most clearly represent the ancient record (or "Nephi Prime," as you put it), and those that more represent later 19th century interpretations/additions/interpolations?

I've been thinking about such a project myself, but know it's not something I'd be able to do alone. Kind of like the 'Bible With Sources Revealed' kind of thing.

The thing is, I think it would be very difficult to come to a consensus. I think first a degree of terms and criteria would need to be developed and agreed upon. I, for one, think it's very possible of being at least three layers of redaction to 1 and 2 Nephi up to and finally including Joseph Smith at the end.

I think it's a very worthwhile effort, and would love to participate if such an initiative were begun.

[Jason]

Personally, I think there's two layers going on there. The original exilic-era layer (from Nephi Prime), and a post-Christian era layer redacted on top of it, whether by a Post-Christian Nephite (3 Nephi?), or (most likely) Joseph Smith.

That is basically what I was getting at.

[Joseph Antley]

I've been thinking about such a project myself, but know it's not something I'd be able to do alone. Kind of like the 'Bible With Sources Revealed' kind of thing.

The thing is, I think it would be very difficult to come to a consensus. I think first a degree of terms and criteria would need to be developed and agreed upon. I, for one, think it's very possible of being at least three layers of redaction to 1 and 2 Nephi up to and finally including Joseph Smith at the end.

I think it's a very worthwhile effort, and would love to participate if such an initiative were begun.

I've messed around with the idea before. Some passages seem easier than others. In other passages, the layers are so tightly interwoven that it might be near impossible.

I agree that it would be difficult to come to a consensus. A lot of it would definitely be conjectural.

[Zakuska]

AAlso note that it is the gospel of the Lamb that they are taking away from. That would explain the covenants, becuase removing them from a book makes no sense.

Agreed... Not only the foundation of Apostles and Prophets were removed... but the very Pirnciple and basics of the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ were changed... and lost.

Heb 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

[Kevin Christensen]

The 'hellenization of Christianity' is a red herring to the issue. It refers more to the reduction of Jewish identity and influence in Christian development over time, and to the inclusion of formalized logic to religious study, leading to formalized, systematic theology, an altar to which LDS apologists bow each and every day in their attempts to defend Mormonism by means of reason. That an apologist would rile against 'hellenization' is to simply saw off the branch he's sitting on, for it is the adoption of Greek approaches to logic out of which his arguments come to have any structure or meaning.

Over simplification. You should read Early Christians in Disarray first.

My argument here is very simple. The orthodox church, even in the earliest days of its existence, could not completely silence the Gnostics, whose teaching is referred to in the Bible itself by Paul, nor could it completely silence the other earliest heresies, so why is there a complete and total absence of any evidence of the removal of any Mormon teaching?

Have you read Barry Bickmore's book Restoring the Ancient Church? For starters? Or Margaret Barker's 2005 talk on the Book of Mormon compared to Pre-Exilic thought?

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

How could the orthodox church be so effective at wiping out specifically Mormon teachings but be so inept at wiping out the teaching of every other heretic off the pages of history?

And here is your problem. You start with some specific "hot button" Mormon teachings in mind. I presume they come from your list of heresies, what defines us as "other", according to you. Not Nephi's definition of what is plain and precious. I find it more profitable to start with Nephi's description of what might be considered "plain and precious" and follow through looking teachings that he, and other Book of Mormon authors might put under that label. I'm personally impressed at the relevance of the DSS version of Deut. 32:8-9 to 1 Nephi 13:39-41.

Margaret Barker's studies are also very interesting, as she starts by considering that something might be missing, and goes looking. She comes up with her list of precious knowledge that had been lost, by making extensive searches and comparisons.

In addition, you do not display awareness of relevant LDS studies related to your list. Nibley and Ostler on "sacred vestiments" for example. Or even the cover of Barker's book Temple Theology: An Introduction. There is a very nice depiction of a ritual handshake there.

Nothing about ritual handshakes, nothing about wearing holy undergarments, nothing about baptisms for the dead, nothing about God having been an exalted man, etc. SNIP Who removed them, and why didn't any righteous person ever succeed in preserving them? Why aren't they included in the plates that Nephi recovered?

You might want to check out an essay called "Are Christians Mormon?" that appeared in BYU Studies not long ago.

And there are some very interesting surmises that we can make about the Brass plates that Nephi recovered. But in the current Book of Mormon, we don't have all of them, nor was all that Joseph Smith translated included in the current text (the Book of Lehi, for instance), nor did Joseph Smith translate all of the plates he had for a while.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Vance]

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

Thanks for the link!

That was extremely interesting.

[Zakuska]

I think this excellent post by ebeddoulos, fits here as well... A plain and precious foundational prophecy that was removed from the OT, But quoted by NT and BOM writers.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208885863

[hagoth7]

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

There is much to be said for such a suggestion.

There are many truths in the scriptures that haven't been taught/sustained from most pulpits in centuries - and some of those truths are openly ridiculed from some of those same pulpits as supposed falsehoods.