Lesson 7 - The Book of Mormon And The Bible

[marineland]

I'm into lesson 7 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions about things
mentioned on these pages.

Page 31 - The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from 
the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the 
Bible is clarified.

Would you be able to provide 2 to 3 of the plain and precious truths that have been lost 
from the Bible and how these are clearly clarified and explained by the Book of Mormon?

Tony

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 7 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions about things
mentioned on these pages.

Page 31 - The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from 
the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the 
Bible is clarified.

Would you be able to provide 2 to 3 of the plain and precious truths that have been lost 
from the Bible and how these are clearly clarified and explained by the Book of Mormon?

Tony

Baptism of little children - Moroni 8

Correct understanding of Grace - 2 Nephi 25:23

The best explanations of Faith, hope, and Charity - Alma 32, Ether 12, Moroni 7

Justice and Mercy - Alma 42:19-25

Pre-earth life and Foreordination - Alma 13

Sealing Power - Helaman 10:7

 

 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Would you be able to provide 2 to 3 of the plain and precious truths that have been lost 
from the Bible and how these are clearly clarified and explained by the Book of Mormon?

• A more complete understanding of the gathering of Israel in the last days and the role the Gentiles would play in that gathering.

• The reality of God's work through prophets of God among the scattered tribes of Israel, in areas of the world other than around Jerusalem, including an anticipation of receiving their records and their scriptures, informing us that there is more to God's word than what is found in the 66 books of the Bible.

• The recognition that authorized temples of God can exist in places other than Jerusalem.

• The understanding of the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:15-22, and the meaning of the two records that come together in the hand of a prophet in the latter days. 

• The understanding of the meaning of the "book" that would come forth just prior to the gathering of Israel, as it says "the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness", as mentioned in Isaiah 29.

Edited April 2, 2022 by InCognitus

[CV75]

On 4/2/2022 at 1:36 PM, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 7 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions about things
mentioned on these pages.

Page 31 - The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from 
the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the 
Bible is clarified.

Would you be able to provide 2 to 3 of the plain and precious truths that have been lost 
from the Bible and how these are clearly clarified and explained by the Book of Mormon?

Tony

We lack specifics on a one-to-one crosswalk on what plain and precious truths were lost (taken away -- see 1 Nephi 13*) and then restored through the writings of the Book of Mormon. I am able to offer one that was not recoded in the first place (the true meaning of John 10:16), and a couple that are not found in our current editions of the Bible: the premortal character of Christ (Ether 3), the location of the New Jerusalem, the nature of the priesthood (Alma 13) and many others, which presumably are the prophecies of the Old Testament's Joseph concerning the latter day work of the Lord that are traced throughout the Book of Mormon. These include the prophecies and blessings concerning the Gentiles and the gathering of Israel in the last days**. Most generally speaking, the Old Testament is one covenant, the New Testament is the greater covenant, and the Book of Mormon is the reconciliation and restoration of both these covenants that were so soundly rejected.

* The Bible has prophecies about this, which isn't unusual considering Israel's (and G/gentiles') history with the covenants of God.

** A friendly challenge: what do you learn from the Book of Mormon about these two plain and precious truths or covenants that you do not learn from the Bible?

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by CV75

[Kevin Christensen]

In 1 Nephi 13 a prophet in exile from Jerusalem 600 BCE offers a prophecy of how the Bible would be transmitted to the present. It would provide valuable knowledge of “the covenants of the Lord” and “prophecies of great worth” (1 Nephi 13:23), but also suffering losses of “plain and precious things” and “many covenants” that contribute to “blindness” (1 Nephi 13:27, 32, Jacob 4:14). The losses and blindness together cause a consequent “stumbling” among an “exceeding great many” (1 Nephi 13:29). Nephi’s prophesy then describes how the Book of Mormon would come forth (1 Nephi  13:35) by “the gift and power of the Lamb”, and then subsequently how other records would come through the gentiles and provide confirming information regarding both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and together restore “the plain and precious things” that had been lost (1 Nephi 13:39).

Nephi cites specific key issues as signifiers of fulfillment: 

And the angel spake unto him saying: These last records which thou has seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known unto all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world, and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. (1 Nephi 13:40)
 

So first of all, the notion that something plain and precious had been lost upends the widely held belief that the Bible was "complete, inerrant, and sufficent."

For some supporting information that something had been lost, to large extent based on many sources that have come through the Gentiles since the Book of Mormon see Margaret Barker, "The Secret Tradition"

Quote

There was far more to the teaching of Jesus than is recorded in the canonical gospels. For several
centuries a belief persisted among Christian writers that there had been a secret tradition entrusted to
only a few of his followers. Eusebius quotes from a now lost work of Clement of Alexandria,
Hypotyposes: ‘James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the LORD after his resurrection
with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the
seventy, one of whom was Barnabas.’ (History 2.1) This brief statement offers three important pieces
of evidence: the tradition was given to an inner circle of disciples; the tradition was given after the
resurrection; and the tradition was a form of higher knowledge i.e. gnosis. 

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

Elsewhere she considers the evidence of the transmission and state of the Biblical texts, notably in comparing the oldest complete Masoretic text with the much much older Dead Sea Scrolls versions, for example that:

Quote

The second sons of God text is Deuteronomy 32:8, one on which a great deal has been written:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men
he fixed the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.

The problem lies in the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. The MT does not mention sons of God, but has sons of Israel instead. The Qumran Hebrew has sons of God (sons of ‘el) and the Greek has angels of God. This text shows two things: that there was some reason for altering sons of God to sons of Israel, or vice versa (the Qumran reading suggests the earlier Hebrew had read ‘sons of God’); and the sons of God were the patron deities of the various nations. Elyon the High God had allocated the nations to the various sons of God; one of these sons was Yahweh to whom Israel had been allocated (Deut. 32.9).
 

See Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. page 6.

In her "Text and Context" essay on the transmission of scripture in light of modern evidence, Barker observes that:

Quote

The text of Psalm 110, the Melchizedek psalm which the early Church quoted more than any other, is corrupt, and the vital verse is unreadable in the MT. The LXX enables us to see that it described the birth of the divine son who became the Melchizedek priest (Ps.110.3). The MT of Proverbs 30.1-4 is unreadable, but it seems to describe someone ascending to heaven to learn Wisdom. And what vision was David granted? The MT of 1 Chronicles 17.17 is unreadable, but seems to describe a vision of the man ascending or perhaps being offered. Why are these lines in the MT unreadable? The distribution of unreadable Hebrew texts is not random; they are texts which bear upon the Christian tradition. Add to these examples the variants in Isaiah about the Messiah, the variants in Deuteronomy 32 about the sons of God, and there is a case to answer. These are instances where traces remain. We can never know what has completely disappeared.

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

Note the observation that “The distribution of unreadable Hebrew texts is not random; they are texts which bear upon the Christian tradition.”  She reports that the earliest Christian Apologist, Justin Martyr, claims that the Jews of his time were changing scripture in response to Christian claims.  Barker reports how the later Christians adopted the changed Hebrew scripture and canon in order to appease their Jewish rivals. 

Elsewhere, Noel Reynolds is able to trace "The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought."  See his essay 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1481/

Margaret Barker's first book was called The Older Testament, and in the introduction she states that:

Quote

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century B.C. when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

I used that quote to introduce my study of Barker's work in comparison to the Book of Mormon, which also offers an unconventional look at Jerusalem and what was taught and believed in the Jerusalem temple before 600 BCE.  After Barker read a few of my essays on the topic, she sat down and read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price in one day.  She commented, "I was amazed at how much I recognized."  When she spoke on the Book of Mormon at the Library of Congress in 2005, she said:

Quote

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah. Thus finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, though obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. This is, I suggest, one aspect of the restoration of “the plain and precious things, which have been taken away from them” (1 Nephi 13:40). The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Christ of the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:8; 3 Nephi 15:5)

And she also noticed that:

Quote

The divine Son, the priest of the order of Melchizedek, was born in the glory of these “holy ones,” or so it seems. Psalm 110 is an enigmatic text, but it seems to describe the birth of an angel priest after the order of Melchizedek in the Holy of Holies of the temple, which represented heaven, which evokes related ideas in Alma 13:–16 in the Book of Mormon.

…The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:8), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the non-canonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruit like grapes (1 Enoch 32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes. I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy, and the interpretation that the Virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh (1 Nephi 11:14–23). This is the Heavenly Mother, represented by the tree of life, and then Mary and her Son on earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 bce.

See Margaret Barker on "Joseph Smith and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion" https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol44/iss4/9/

Also, see Kevin Christensen, "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies"

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/paradigms-regained-survey-margaret-barkers-scholarship-and-its-significance-mormon-studies

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kevin Christensen

[marineland]

On 4/2/2022 at 1:51 PM, Fether said:

Correct understanding of Grace - 2 Nephi 25:23

What does salvation mean in that verse?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, marineland said:

What does salvation mean in that verse?

See verse 25.

[Fether]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

What does salvation mean in that verse?

Traditionally it isn’t ever explained, but assumed to mean exaltation.

I would also ask what does the “after all we can do” part mean. Is that saying “despite all we do, it is grace that saves us”, “grace only saves us after we have done all we can do”, or the Wilcox explanation “grace helps us be saved after what we do regardless of the effort we put in”

[filovirus]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Traditionally it isn’t ever explained, but assumed to mean exaltation.

I would also ask what does the “after all we can do” part mean. Is that saying “despite all we do, it is grace that saves us”, “grace only saves us after we have done all we can do”, or the Wilcox explanation “grace helps us be saved after what we do regardless of the effort we put in”

That scripture reference is taken out of context more often than not. Who is speaking? Nephi. What is “all that he can do” at that time? He answers it in verse 24. “We keep the law of Moses”. Even though Nephi realizes at this point that the law is dead (vs 25). So Nephi is keeping a dead law, all while knowing that the law will not bring and never would have brought salvation, but rather grace is what brings salvation.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/2/2022 at 10:36 AM, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 7 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions about things
mentioned on these pages.

Page 31 - The Book of Mormon restores plain and precious truths that have been lost from 
the Bible. When we study the Book of Mormon, our understanding of the doctrines in the 
Bible is clarified.

Would you be able to provide 2 to 3 of the plain and precious truths that have been lost 
from the Bible and how these are clearly clarified and explained by the Book of Mormon?

Tony

God is embodied, (THE Perfect Human, ) and the Godhead is unified by purpose and love, not some spiritual immaterial "substance"

Edited April 9, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God is embodied, (THE Perfect Human, ) and the Godhead is unified by purpose and love, not some spiritual immaterial "substance"

I hope you will accept this as a genuine question  . . . . could you please let me know where you see the embodiment of God the Father taught in the Book of Mormon? I am not talking about some form of anthropomorphism used as an analogy (like Christ stands at the door of our heart and knocks or II Chron. 16:9 where the eyes of God go to and fro), but a real belief in an embodied Father. Thanks so much, Phil

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hope you will accept this as a genuine question  . . . . could you please let me know where you see the embodiment of God the Father taught in the Book of Mormon? I am not talking about some form of anthropomorphism used as an analogy (like Christ stands at the door of our heart and knocks or II Chron. 16:9 where the eyes of God go to and fro), but a real belief in an embodied Father. Thanks so much, Phil

Standard source is when the bro of Jared sees God's fingers, in Ether 12

DC 130.

I like Matthew 18... 10? Around there.... Angel's see face of God

Plus it is one's interpretation to decide what anthropomorphism is or is not a useful paradigm.

The paradigm suggesting that God is actually embodied was crucial to my conversion when a humanist, joking about humanity and God, said to me that God was made up by humanity so they could have a human image to worship, and asked "So which was it, did God make man, or did man make God?" as he chortled after a few beers we had both been drinking.

I instantly saw the logic that it could have been both, and how that paradigm could totally alter Christianity into humanism and vice versa.

I found the church a few years later

Edited April 9, 2022 by mfbukowski

[marineland]

14 hours ago, Fether said:

Traditionally it isn’t ever explained, but assumed to mean exaltation.

If salvation in the Book of Mormon means exaltation, that would lead me to conclude everyone else suffers damnation.

[marineland]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God is embodied, (THE Perfect Human, ) and the Godhead is unified by purpose and love, not some spiritual immaterial "substance"

What do you mean Heavenly Father is the perfect human?

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

assumed to mean exaltation.

Where is it assumed to be exaltation rather than salvation? I don’t see exaltation being identical to being alive in Christ, but perhaps I have missed something. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is it assumed to be exaltation rather than salvation? I don’t see exaltation being identical to being alive in Christ, but perhaps I have missed something. 

In the way Latter-day Saints talk about it, exaltation is assumed in THEIR context. Not scriptural

@marineland same response to your comment

Edited April 9, 2022 by Fether

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Fether said:

In the way Latter-day Saints talk about it, exaltation is assumed in THEIR context. Not scriptural

@marineland same response to your comment

Well, I was going to disagree with you but then found this in the 275 manual when I looked for references to 25:23

Quote

According to Lehi, what makes salvation possible in God’s plan? (Students should identify the following: We can be saved only through the merits, mercy, and grace of Jesus Christ. You might share the following definition of what it means to be saved or to receive salvation: “Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak”
[Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (1966), 670].)

As a Latter-day Saint though, I think we jump to exaltation too often when the scripture speaks of salvation. After all, all three heavens are heavens of glory. 

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, I was going to disagree with you but then found this in the 275 manual when I looked for references to 25:23

As a Latter-day Saint though, I think we jump to exaltation too often when the scripture speaks of salvation. After all, all three heavens are heavens of glory. 

There are a handful of Latter-day Saint terminology and platitudes that don’t really mean what we think they mean. But we use them to teach concepts in a simple way. 
 

The idea that God will consecrate our effort via his grace to help us become all he wants us to become is a true principle. A brief glance at 2 Nephi 25:23 may help someone understand this idea… even though that may not be what the intended meaning is.

also, I would add that only those that are exalted are saved from damnation (cease progression). So perhaps the quote is correct. “Salvation in its … full meaning is synonymous with exaltation”

Edited April 9, 2022 by Fether

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, marineland said:

If salvation in the Book of Mormon means exaltation, that would lead me to conclude everyone else suffers damnation.

From this link:   https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/damnation?lang=eng

Quote

Damnation

See also Death, Spiritual; Devil; Hell; Sons of Perdition

The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

This interpretation is what bothers me.  How can a resident of one of the heavens of God’s glory be considered one of the damned.  I get damnation here means limitation, but the world generally views damnation as suffering.  I think it creates huge confusion.  I see the damnation of those in God’s heavens as occurring prior to resurrection and being resolved before then.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

This interpretation is what bothers me.  How can a resident of one of the heavens of God’s glory be considered one of the damned.  I get damnation here means limitation, but the world generally views damnation as suffering.  I think it creates huge confusion.  I see the damnation of those in God’s heavens as occurring prior to resurrection and being resolved before then.

I agree 110%  

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/8/2022 at 8:29 PM, Fether said:

Traditionally it isn’t ever explained, but assumed to mean exaltation.

I would also ask what does the “after all we can do” part mean. Is that saying “despite all we do, it is grace that saves us”, “grace only saves us after we have done all we can do”, or the Wilcox explanation “grace helps us be saved after what we do regardless of the effort we put in”

With due respect, I don't know that your paraphrase has captured Brother Wilcox's opinion on the matter accurately.

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, I don't know that your paraphrase has captured Brother Wilcox's opinion on the matter accurately.

Have you ever heard Wilcox explain what “Salvation” means in this section?

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

Have you ever heard Wilcox explain what “Salvation” means in this section?

Yes, I believe I have.  And, again, I don't believe you are representing what he has said and/or what he has written accurately.  Consider this a CFR.  Why don't you find a direct quote from him?  He has written and spoken widely enough that it shouldn't be hard.  That way, we're not going back and forth like this:

Fether: "I believe what I have heard him say is ..."

Ken: "That's not what I understand him to be saying ..."

And so on and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes, I believe I have.  And, again, I don't believe you are representing what he has said and/or what he has written accurately.  Consider this a CFR.  Why don't you find a direct quote from him?  He has written and spoken widely enough that it shouldn't be hard.  That way, we're not going back and forth like this:

Fether: "I believe what I have heard him say is ..."

Ken: "That's not what I understand him to be saying ..."

And so on and so on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

I don’t remember hearing him say anything about clarifying what he meant by salvation. I am simply going off of the context of his talks and what it seems he is saying… but again, I dont think he has ever specified it.
 

Can you please help correct me and show me where he defined “salvation”?