Plain and precious doctrines taken from the Bible

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi declared, speaking of the Bible that there would be many, “plain and precious things taken away.”  There is no specific time mentioned that this would happen, only that after it happened it then went to all the nations of the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13: 26-29).  Some would conclude that this was only the Old Testament, but the New Testament is obviously included in this as it is part of the Gentile Bible that Nephi speaks of.  Note that the printing press was not invented until the 15^thcentury and until then the Bible, for all intensive purposes, was simply not available for all to read.  At the very least, it was not available until it was compiled, which was around the 5^th century.  But notice in verse 26 it states, "they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious."  So it is not necessarily taken from a book.  Now we can proceed to evaluate this claim.

Many vehemently object to this prophecy as it puts into question the inerrancy claim of the Bible (this claim being important as the Bible is held up as their ultimate authority in all they do and teach).  Some would argue, asserting as proof that we have very old documents of both the Old and New Testaments, so we can see that this prophecy is not true.  The fact is that the earliest New Testament document (a very small fragment) we have was written in the 3^rd century and most are much later, therefore all we have are copies of copies of copies.  In addition, when we look at these copies, we indeed can see changes, deletions, as well as additions. 1

Ancient Christian support

Origen (c. AD 185-255) was one of the earliest and most respected Christian writers.  The Bible had not yet been compiled—they only had circulated manuscripts.  Origen noted, “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of theirs; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please”. 2  

This phenomenon was also noted by Justin Martyr, another early Christian writer.  He observed that certain important prophecies of Christ had been removed from the Jewish scriptures. 3 The Bible itself can testify to this fact as there are 13 books of scripture mentioned in the Bible that are not in the Bible, not to mention that there are literally thousands of verifiable errors. 1

Revelations 22:18,19 is a scripture warning to not add or take away from, "the words of the book of this prophecy".  This is thrown at Mormons by the uneducated to mean there can be no more scripture, implying the Book of Mormon.  In fact Revelations was not the last book written in the Bible, and as noted above, there was no Bible at the time to take away from.  This same warning is also given in Deuteronomy, as I mention later.  So why this warning?  I would suggest that The Apostle John, the writer of Revelations, had already witnessed problems with the words of scripture being circulated at the time being tampered with.  He mentions words being added as well as taken out, thus the warning.

Then there are cases such as the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:6,7, which is not found in earliest Greek texts.  This is one of the very few Biblical texts that may lay claim to a Trinitarian God.  There is evidence that deletions took place as well for this same reason.

In his book, Two Powers in Heaven, Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Alan F. Segal notes that the image of God and a companion Lord eventually became quite problematic in both Rabbinic orthodoxy and among the early fourth century theologians who crafted the Nicene, Chalcedonian and Athanasian creeds.  He points out that the theologians who crafted the creeds gave no authoritative place to passages like Psalms 110 and Daniel 7 that attest to more than one God.  He writes, "To bolster the content of these creeds, some zealous Christian scribes altered their Greek New Testament manuscripts to transform the original heavenly council imagery of God and Lord into more orthodox Trinitarian patterns.  Roman Catholic orthodox and Protestant theologians joined orthodox rabbinic teachers in a common effort to abandon and suppress a central cosmological symbol in the Hebrew Bible and a central Christological symbol of the New Testament."

In her book, King of the Jews, Dr. Margaret Barker points out that there are early texts which clearly indicate that in ancient Israel, El, God the Father, and Yahweh were considered separate deities.  On page 60 and 70 Barker writes, "There is no rivalry in the Hebrew biblical texts between El and Yahweh, and that a group of early texts survive, many in Genesis where El is clearly a separate deity from Yahweh.  In the Exilic period, El and Yahweh coalesced." Truly this is a plain and precious truth taken from the scriptures.  

The Exilic period refers to the time of the Babylonian exile, which around 600 BC under King Josiah, who, as I will show below, was extremely trusting, allowing the Deuteronomists full reign in altering the scriptures.  These people were all about rewriting history as well as religion.  They eliminated anything that had to do with Yahweh's approachability, that he has a father, that he is a person.  They eliminated much about the Messiah and the need to repent, instead emphasizing The Law.  They changed the Temple to only be valid in Jerusalem causing the need for synagouges, and they demonized any king in their history that did not go along with their views.4

Modern Christian Support

Though many may be available, I choose to continue with one particular scholar on this subject--Dr. Margaret Barker.  Though not LDS, she is not only a well-known expert on the Old Testament and ancient Christianity, she is also well versed on LDS teachings and addresses this very issue.  Here is some of what she says on this subject: 

“One generation before Zedekiah there had been the great upheaval in the reign of King Josiah, something now regarded as the turning point in the history of Jerusalem and its religion.  The events are usually described as King Josiah’s “reform,” the assumption being that everything he did was good and that the biblical texts describing the reform are an accurate and objective account.  Other ancient texts had a very different view of Josiah and his work, but since they were eventually not included in the Bible, they are not often considered when the Bible is taught today.  Yet here is our first warning: if some of the wickedness in Jerusalem mentioned in the First Book of Nephi included parts of Josiah’s temple purges, we should expect to find information relevant to the Mormon tradition in texts outside the Bible.  And we do.”

 

She continues to mention dozens of examples of sacred texts that were eliminated, telling us that King Josiah allowed the Deuteronomists to prevail.  She goes on, “Josiah’s purge was driven by their ideals, and their scribes influenced much of the form of the Old Testament we have today.  The Deuteronomists denied that anyone had a vision of the Lord (Deu 4:12), they denied that anyone had revelations from heaven, and they insisted the Ten Commandments were all that was necessary (Deu 30:8, 11-14).  Nothing more was to be added to them (Deu 5:22).  Prophecies were genuine only if they had already been fulfilled and had no more power (Deu 18:21-22).  The Deuteronomists had no place for angels, and so they did not use the title “Lord of Hosts.”  These were the minds that eventually led to the closed canon of scripture and the cessation of prophecy.  But the prophets did have visions of the Lord and the angels, they did speak in the name of the Lord, and their unfulfilled prophecies were carefully preserved… 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 of Israel would have taught about the Messiah.  Thus, finding Christ in the Old Testament (or the lack thereof) 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 (1 Ne 13:40).” 5

There are many more details that verify what the Deuteronomists did with regard to Jesus and His sacrifice.  For example, they completely took out the Day of Atonement off of their calendar.  What Dr. Baker is revealing here is monumental.  To have Jesus Christ mentioned plainly in the Old Testament as the Messiah, would be earth-shattering for all of Christianity.  Yet this is exactly what we have in the Book of Mormon, even in the era of the Old Testament.  In its just more than 6000 versus in the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ is referred to almost 4000 times.

In Key to the Keystone, Jonah Barnes points out dozens of detailed doctrines that have been found in recently discovered religious texts that are not in our Bible today.  These texts predate King Josiah's "reform".  What we find is literally hundreds of examples that these doctrines-even those that are very messianic-are the same as we find in The Book of Mormon, often word for word.  The evidence is astounding that ancient scribes did quite a number on the Canon.  The same is demonstrated in Barnes' similar book, The Lost Gems of Genesis.  Probably the most important nugget is to show just how messianic Genesis actually was.

Jacob 7:11 tells us, "None of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ."  But in the Old Testament we do not have these words.  Seems to me this an important omission.  In today's entire Old Testament the word Messiah occurs twice, Son of God once, and Only Begotten is not found at all.  Yet in the book of Moses, a partial restoration of the Old Testament, in only eight chapters we find Jesus Christ 4 times, Messiah twice, Son of God twice, Only Begotten 25 times, Son of Man 8 times, and Son (referring to Jesus Christ) 11times.

A Doctrinal Approach

Although it may be true that there were in fact deletions, my case here is to show that there were also teachings that were doctrinally deleted, changing "the gospel of the Lamb".  In other words, my contention is that there are many plain and precious teachings still in the Bible that have astonishingly been taken away doctrinally.  Although they are simple and right in front of us, they have been wrenched, misinterpreted, voted out, and even ignored until they have been lost as doctrine.  New manmade doctrine have taken its place.  Some of these teachings were likely more clearly contained in the above examples, but glimpses do remain in the Bible.  

LDS scholar, Dr. John Welch beautifully describes this process, “First things would be taken away, not from the texts of the Bible, but from the gospel itself.  In the words of the angel the first thing mentioned is that the Gentiles would take away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious.  This stage possibly could have occurred more by altering the meaning or understanding of the concepts taught by the Lord than by changing the words themselves.  Later Nephi says there were many plain and precious things taken away from the book.  This step apparently should be understood as a consequence of the preceding step, since verse 28 begins with wherefore.  Thus, the actual physical loss of things from the text of the Bible was perhaps less a cause than it was the result of the fact that at first the gospel and the covenants had been lost or taken away.”

Note he mentions the word covenants here.  In verse 26 it states, "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."  So among the doctrine taken away are covenants.  There is much that can be derived from this word.  God has always chosen to work with His people through covenants.  But what seems to be most emphasized here is the Abrahamic covenant and importantly we learn that the Abrahamic covenant is extended to the Gentiles.

 

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Joshua Sears on this topic, the Gentile supersessionism after Christ’s death in claiming the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled and no longer needed is a major contributor to what has happened.  There are still promises that are saved for Jacob’s children.  God is still going to gather Israel.  They are still the missionary force to bring everything to the world, and the covenant is still the way that we come unto the Father, enter into a relationship with him and receive all the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 6 

The Book of Mormon sets this straight, and today the restored church refers to this as the covenant path.  This covenant path ends with exaltation.  President Russell M. Nelson has said, "Salvation is an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter." Covenants are absolutely essential for exaltation.

Some of the other "many parts" that were taken away that I chose to speak of below were verifiably believed by the earliest Christians, and most actually continued with these beliefs well into the dark ages until they were consciously denied by the predominant church at the time, but were thankfully restored through the restoration. 

How Man is Saved

 

Is there any other more important teaching or doctrine?  This question and the corresponding answer have gone through many changes through the centuries.  I will just share a couple scriptures here that are completely ignored or wrested away, "unto their own destruction." (2 Pet 3; 16)

 

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)  "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? Even so faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone." (James 2:14,17,24) 

 

Now the answer that has been taken away is simple for those who have an ear to hear.  Here are some scriptures that should solve it easily.  "He that believeth in me and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)  “Repent, and be baptized every one of you.” (Acts 2:38)  “Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts 3:19)  “He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)

 

Mainstream religion cringes at the thought they have to actually work to be a righteous person. There is no doubt salvation is a gift and freely available to any through the grace of our Savior.  But we still cannot just sit still and expect it to happen.  Earning it seems to be a taboo word, and it is true we do not earn salvation on our own the way critics think of this word and incorrectly portray it on LDS.  So lets state it simply:  We must repent through the grace of Jesus Christ, be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end.  This qualifies us and puts us on the road that leads to salvation, every whit.

 

The Nature of God

To answer questions about the nature of God, the Trinity was created at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.  Nephi does explain more deeply what he means by these plain and precious morsels.  Several times he refers to this as parts of the gospel that were taken away  (see versus 26 and 34 for example).  He also gives us at least one example himself, possibly making it the most important one to him.  In verse 40 he refers to other records which will come to light in the last days, and that these records will, “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.”  

There it is—plain, simple and precious, yet how many truly believe Jesus is the literal Son of God?  Jesus is referred to many times in the Bible as the Son of God.  The Bible also refers to The Father, and the Holy Spirit just as such.  As simple as it seems, nearly the whole of Christianity does not believe this in its’ simplicity—as it is given to us in the scriptures.  Jesus is rather a personage of God the Father.  Likewise God the Father and the Holy Ghost are simply a personage of the same God as well.  They are all somehow mysteriously one “essence”—the word used in the 4^th century when this doctrine first became official at the Council of Nicea.

There are literally dozens of scriptures on this point that are plain and precious but are no longer believed as they are written.  Here is just a sampling: Hebrews 1:5, Matthew 22:44, Matthew 24:36, John 14:28, John 17:1, Matthew 27:46.  I will only quote one, John 20:17, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”  There are multiple questions here.  Why would He ascend to Himself?  But more importantly how could His God also be our God if He was God?

Why would God confuse us on this important doctrine if these are not to be understood as they are written?  Plain, precious and taken away.

The argument might be that we need to have faith that God is greater than man can imagine.   He is mysterious only to us, but not to him.  That he speaks in this manner only for our benefit.  So why is it so important to understand Him correctly?  Or is it important at all?  Jesus answers this question himself in John 17:3, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”.  Here he equates eternal life with knowing Him and God.  I would ask, if He is a mysterious “essense” to us, can we really know Him?

Baptism

In Matthew 3:14, upon meeting Jesus, John said: "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" However, Jesus convinces John to baptize him nonetheless.  “As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water.”  

Here are some other scriptures mentioning baptism:

Acts chapter 2 is the day of Pentacost when the church is basically organized and many listening are pricked with the spirit.  They then ask Peter what they do now.  He did not respond by telling them to say a little prayer and accept Jesus into your heart, but was very direct and to the point.  Acts 2:38 says, “Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”

Romans 6: 3, 4,  “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

John 3: 5, “Except a man be born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God.” This is probably the most disputed scripture among Christians.  Most interpret this eisegetically--imposing tradition onto the scripture.  I believe scripture to interpret it as water baptism as shown here.  The early church fathers unanimously interpreted it that way.

Here is the question:  Is baptism important?  I hope it is obvious that these scriptural examples all say it is.  However, a big part of Christianity says no.  Some say it is a personal choice but not necessary.  Further, some claim if it is performed at all, that it is done by sprinkling water on the head, not by immersion, although the symbolic gesture of dying in the grave and coming out to life again is destroyed in this case.

Again, I will not get into the importance of baptism, or of doing it right, only that here we see another example of an important doctrine that is still in the Bible, and that it is simple, and that it is precious, and that it has been taken away.

Premortal Life

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD formally condemned the teachings of a Pre-mortal existence of souls.  But consider the following scriptures:  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth…when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38: 4, 7)  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee (Jeremiah 1: 5).  The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him (Zech 12: 1).  Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (Acts 17: 28)  He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1: 4).  “And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” (Mark 1:23-24)

This is not an exhaustive list, but will suffice to bring the point to light.  What all of these scriptures have in common is that they all suggest a pre-mortal existence of man—a doctrine that is vital to understanding many other concepts relating us to our God.  Far from being unimportant, this morsel of truth helps us to understand the majesty of who we are and what we can become.  It helps us understand why bad things happen to good people and the importance of all human life.  Yet this precious doctrine, while still in the Bible and believed by christians for centuries after Christ, has been taken away.

Salvation for the Dead

The Third Council of Carthage in 397 outlawed baptism for the dead.  Many thinking Christians often ask, what about all the billions of people that lived and died and never even heard the name of Jesus?  Are they all doomed to hell?  Since belief in Jesus is a basic requirement, the answer would be yes.  This is a moral question--one that would seem to put God's goodness into extreme doubt.  But the answer was different with the earliest Christians, and it has been in the Bible all along.

1 Peter 3: 18-29, Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah."  And 1 Peter 4: 6, "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."  Then finally 1 Cor 15: 29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized for the dead?"  

I won't get into the complete context and interpretation, just to say this... What purpose is there in Christ preaching to those that are dead--especially those in prison that were evil and destroyed?  Peter plainly tells us that they may be fairly judged and have a chance to live in the spirit of God--the same chance given to living men.  Then we have a verse in Corinthians many Christians aren't sure what to do with, but it is a positive argument for the reality of the resurrection using baptism for the dead, taking for granted that the reader knows very well that this practice is taking place.  Who else believes these things, and who else practices these things?  None but one, for again, this precious doctrine has been taken away from the Bible.

This phenomenon of deleting, changing, or ignoring the written word that is plainly written in front of them is not new to this dispensation.  For example, when the Savior was in His ministry, He plainly told his disciples of His death and being raised the third day--that in this first coming He was there as a spiritual savior, not as a military savior.  Though it was plainly in the scripitures (as He pointed out to them after His resurrection) all the people were so entrenched in the belief that the messiah would be only a military savior, that they were blinded to the plain and precious scriptures saying otherwise.

As I mentioned, there are many other doctrines this applies to, such as the teaching of priesthood responsibility as taught in Jacob 1 and 2, the role of faith building to knowledge as taught in Alma 32, what we learn from the Garden of Eden, the degrees of glory and the potential of man.  My hope is that the question at hand has been proved—that Nephi’s sad prophecy has indeed come to pass, but more importantly, that we can again enjoy the original gospel fully restored in our day.

Here and here are discussions on how Biblical changes came about.

1-(see Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman)

2-Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79.

3-Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73

4-See Deuteronomy and The Deuteronomic School by Moshe Weinfeld.

5-As spoken at a conference in The Library of Congress, contained in the book, The Worlds of Joseph Smith, pp 70-71, 79.

6-As taken from followHIM podcast, 2 Nephi 11-15 Part 2

Where is Truth?

Where is truth?

The question

Shortly after my new neighbor moved in, I found that he was of the Hindu faith.  The more I got to know him, the more I saw how devoted he was to his faith. In one instance, he had an opportunity to get free grass for his backyard that was leftover by landscapers, but stated, “No, I cannot do that, I believe what goes around comes around.”  My initial thought was; wait a minute, I believe that.  I am supposed to be an example to you.  Instead I responded simply with, “yes, I do too.”  I have heard from others how spiritual these people are.  They believe in an almighty deity, prayer, modesty, marriage, strong families, honesty, fidelity before and after marriage, and basically all the morals that I seem to believe in.  Can it be that others not of my faith, not even Christian, can commune with God as I feel I do?  This is the question I intend to answer here.  To do so, let’s take some time and go back to the ancient Israelites, who I believe give us a perfect example in our efforts to answer this question.

An ancient example

After their miraculous exodus out of Egypt, the Israelites were given the Law of Moses.  We are to understand from scripture that this was not a saving principle or law for them in and of itself.  The Law of Moses was intended to eventually bring people to Christ (Gal 3:24) and help them to become a righteous people (Romans 9:32), but if it did not offer a fullness of salvation to these particular people, why bother?

It is important here to realize that the Lord did try to give them more initially, but despite the wishes of the Lord, the people as a whole did not "climb the mountain to worship him" there as he had commanded, and did not receive the priesthood (only the tribe of Levi) nor did they as a people. Instead, only a few (Moses, Aaron and his sons and 70 elders of Israel) were allowed to join the Lord atop the mountain, where they ate in his presence. The people never became the “kingdom of priests” the Lord intended them to be. 

A further consequence of this was that the higher law that the Lord intended to give to Israel was set aside for a time, while a lesser, carnal law replaced it. Paul wrote, “The law was added for transgression” till the coming of Christ (Gal. 3:19-20)."  The inferiority of the Law of Moses as compared to the law of the gospel brought by Jesus is mentioned in various places by Paul in the New Testament. But, surprisingly, it is also a subject of discussion by Old Testament prophets (see Ezekiel 20: 23-24).

So the Lord clearly did not prefer the Law of Moses to what they could have had, but He nevertheless sanctioned it for the time being.  Though Israel rejected the higher law and had to be placed under the yoke of a lesser, carnal law, there remained the anticipation that, at some future date, the Lord would once again reveal the fullness of that higher law to his people. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Tying it together

The sequence and purpose of these events is important to understand, as it is often repeated in history with people other than those noted in the Bible.  Notice that God still communed with the Israelites.  He stilled loved them, answered their prayers, at times gave them further wisdom, and covenanted that He would still bring them to himself at a later date.  Their main problem was, like my Hindu neighbor, “They desire to know the truth in part” (D&C 49: 2), so that is what the Lord gave them.  They were still on a path toward God, albeit a slower route.

Before we condemn the Israelites, or anyone not of your faith, we should realize that most men learn this way.  If this is the only way we can inch toward Him and eventually come to accept the fullness of His doctrine then this is the way He will do it.  Isaiah puts it this way, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).  Nephi makes it a bit more clear, “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Ne 28:30).  

Every human being grows this way.  Most all of us would choke on the meat if we were fed it before the milk (1 Cor 3:2).  But even if a people were to refuse the later, more filling meat, they are still loved by God and will be given whatever morsels of truth they can chew on, even though man may corrupt it and it “be taken away, even that which they have.”

I think it is obvious, but I will make clear that a belief in the fullness of truth is always preferable to the Lord, but He will lead them as far as they will go on the path getting there, especially if that belief leads them to honesty, fidelity, being a good spouse and parent, and growing in ways they otherwise may not.

Extra-Biblical acknowledgements of this principle

Roger Keller PhD, professor of church history and doctrine, an expert on world religions, and a former Presbyterian head pastor observes, “God does not leave any of His children alone without spiritual guidance.  That guidance may come through Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or any number of ways.  I am as sure today as I was 35 years ago that I was called to be a Presbyterian Minister.  He gave me the authority to preach Christ because this is what I knew. What I did not have was the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel.  These ordinances are channels of grace unto the atonement—not that any one of these will save us in and of themselves, but they will channel us to the atonement.  Our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters are part of God’s plan that the fullness of the gospel could come.  They continue to prepare the way.  Even if not “Christian”, whatever is true is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ and wherever I find it I should rejoice and be glad it is there, for it is enriching human life.  Who are those people?  Muhammad, Confucius, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, Loutsa.  Perhaps my Buddhist neighbor is working on his spirituality, and my Muslim neighbor is working on ethical issues and I am working on serving because I was so obviously selfish in the pre-mortal life that I had to become a Latter-Day-Saint.”

The Book of Mormon conveys this truth very clearly.  “And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ” (Moroni 7: 24).

Brigham Young once stated. “For me the plan of salvation must circumscribe all the knowledge that is upon the face of the Earth or it is not from God.  Such a plan incorporates every system of true doctrine on the Earth, whether is be ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical, or civil.  It incorporates all good laws that have been made from the days of Adam until now.  It swallows up the laws of nations, for it exceeds them all in knowledge and purity. It circumscribes the doctrines of the day and takes from the right and the left and brings all truth together in one system and leaves the chaff scattered hither and thither.”

This same thought is conveyed through Nephi concerning the written word in all its varieties, “For I command all men, both in the east and in the west and in the north and in the south and in the islands in the sea that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.  For behold I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it, and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it, and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which have been led away and they shall write it, and I shall also speak unto all nations of the Earth and they shall write it” (2 Ne 29: 11.12). 

God will not only speak to all, but as mentioned earlier, He will use all who will to move forward His work. Orson F. Whitney (as quoted by Howard W. Hunter in 1991 conference address) has commented on this subject, “Many great religious leaders have been inspired.  God is using not only His covenant people but other peoples as well. To consummate a work stupendous, magnificent and altogether too arduous for this little handful of saints to accomplish by and of themselves.  All down the ages men bearing the authority of the holy priesthood, patriarchs, prophets, apostles and others have officiated in the name of the Lord doing the things that He required of them and outside the pale of their activities good and great men not bearing the priesthood but professing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows have been sent by the Almighty unto many nations to give them, not the fullness of the gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use.”

Finally, the Preach My Gospel manual for missionaries in the LDS church states, “Throughout history, many people have sincerely believed false creeds and doctrines.  They have worshiped according to the light they possessed and have received answers to their prayers.” (pg. 36)

Non-LDS acknowledgement

There have been several wise religious leaders other than Latter-Day-Saints that have recognized the truth of these things.  St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote in the 4^thcentury that God is so “far above our nature and inaccessible to all approach” that he, in effect, speaks to us in baby talk, thereby giving “to our human nature what it is capable of receiving.”

St Thomas Aquinas, a highly respected early church father and often thought of as the ultimate authority in early Christian thought, stated, “The things of God should be revealed to mankind only in proportion to their capacity; otherwise, they might despise what was beyond their grasp…It was, therefore, better for the divine mysteries to be conveyed to an uncultured people as it were, veiled.”

John Calvin flatly asserted that God “reveals himself to us according to our rudeness and infirmity.” If scriptural comparisons—as between the two testaments, for example—seem to suggest that God is changeable or inconsistent, that is merely because “he accommodated diverse forms to different ages, as he knew would be expedient for each; he has accommodated himself to men’s capacity, and this is what is varied and changeable.”

Although He may give diverse truths to what a people can accept, since He is the same God to all men, what He reveals to one people will, of necessity, often have much similarity to that which He gives to another people.

Similarity and secularity

At this point let’s take an unfortunate, yet necessary detour and consider what is a real problem for many, and that is the similarity and secularity of religion—or the question of how it came to be.  Opponents of religion sometimes claim that the similarity seen in all religion—both ancient and modern—is proof that it is all just copied from one to another. Just to pick one claimant, James Frazer in The Golden Bough compiled an enormous set of examples to argue that there is nothing original in Christianity whatsoever.  Isiacism, for example, which originated in Egypt and spread throughout Rome, with Isis being compared to the virgin Mary—was impregnated by an immaculate conception.  Osiris—being compared to Jesus—was born of a virgin birth with heavenly signs.  Osiris was resurrected as a display that Isis was the savior that could save all humans.  There are indeed many striking examples of what seems to be Christian-like beliefs before Christianity.  There is similarity from ancient to modern, as well as similarity cross-over between what should be unrelated belief systems and cultural ceremonies. 

For me there is a wonderful answer and a divine answer to this question.  The wonderful answer is given very well by Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University.  In his book, Cities of God he gives us what is a very plausible explanation; “If the Christ story seems steeped in pagan conventions (or any other belief system) this does not necessarily show these elements to be false. Rather, their very conventionality can be interpreted as having been the most effective way for God to communicate within the limits of Greco-Roman comprehension.  These were ‘proofs’ of Christ’s divinity that pagans could most easily recognize.”  Cyril Bailey expressed this very well.  At the time Christianity arose, he said, “Men were looking in certain directions and couched their religious aspirations and beliefs in certain terms.  Christianity spiked the language which they understood and set its theology and its ritual in the forms which to its own generation seemed natural.  The Gospel could not have won its way if it had not found an echo in the religious searchings and even the religious beliefs of the time.”  Putting it bluntly, an incomprehensible faith would surely have required miraculous conversions.  Hence, the similarities between Christianity and earlier beliefs can be explained in terms of human limitations.  At the very least, the claim that similarity necessitates secularity is far less convincing than has been supposed by ardent atheists or the theologically uninformed.” This very same argument is often made for the fullness of the gospel to have been received in Joseph Smith’s time. Laws of the land, belief shifts of the people, and even superstitions of the day made the people ripe for the restoration.

Rodney Stark continues, “From the beginning Christian theologians have been fully aware of similarities between the Christ story and pagan mythology.  And it did not disturb them to admit that elements of God’s final revelation had seeped into human awareness to help prepare the way. Moreover, the familiarity of the Christ story was entirely consistent with the long-standing Christian’s premise that God’s revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend.”  In other words, similarities exist due to the willingness and capacity for man to receive it. God gave bits and pieces at a time, whenever and wherever it was feasible.

  I can go along with this explanation with no reservations, however…

Now for the divine answer.  This is so simple it hurts.  Although comparative religion has been a bastion of atheism, if one considers that Christianity was only a restoration of what was in the beginning, all other similar forms, no matter how striking, come into perspective.  Pure unadulterated religion was available to man from the beginning and from time to time as he would accept it through the ages, and man, as he “leans to his own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5), repeatedly takes it and alters it according to his imperfect understanding. (See The Ancient Tradition)

Neither Rodney Stark nor similar scholars opinions on this subject are new.  In the 4th century, Augustine theorized in his Retractions, "What is now called Christian religion has existed among the ancients, and was not absent from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh: from which time true religion, which existed already, began to be called Christian."

It is only common sense that one would see a form of the same original belief in most if not all other belief systems.  Indeed this is the case.  Those familiar with the LDS Temple would see a mountain of remarkable similarities all throughout the world with symbols, stories, ceremonies, covenants, the existence of thousands of Temples many of which were similarly constructed; and with a wide range of people and cultures sharing very similar temple-like beliefs, including the ancient Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites, Masons, the Protestant liturgies, the ancient Catholics, and native Americans just to name a few.  Thought of in this way, the similarity of religions is not a problem, but is actually faith promoting.  But how a belief system comes into being is beside the point at hand.  Whether it is an original revelation without intent to alter, or an alteration or protestant belief, God will still accept the truth and good that is there no matter how it got there.

Conclusion

I work very closely with the same people sometimes for years and get to know them very well.  Often the people I work with I feel almost as though they were brothers and sisters to me.  Although there are several cases similar to the one I mention here, there is one in particular that is moving on soon to another position.  I have thought of what I can say in parting with her that would make a difference in her life.  She is a Catholic, though not an active one.  She rarely goes to church, but feels very strong Catholic ties through tradition.  Even so, she feels that sex without marriage is fine, homosexuality is ok, and has many values that are much more Humanistic than Catholic.  Although I feel it would be ultimately the best for her, I will not tell her to see the LDS missionaries, read the Book of Mormon and be baptized. I know her well enough to know that she would reject this and it would make no difference in her life at all. What I think I would say is something like, “Be the best Catholic you can be”.  At least the Catholic values are much more in line with what the Lord would want of her than what she currently practices.

As alluded to several times, in case it has not been clear enough, God very often will give to men what they will accept currently in hopes they will do good now, and accept more later—even if it is gradual.  This could easily apply to the Law of Moses, Greek Mythology, Paganism, Islam, and even today’s orthodox Christianity. Thus, to say that God surely would only speak to me, or to my religion, or even the only true and pure religion would be short-sighted and limiting what God can and intends to do.  He surely can and does inspire, lead, and answer the prayers of all his children that seek him.  We are clearly informed that we are all the children of God and that Jesus is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10).  

You may have a neighbor that has, as part of his belief, a sharp disdain for yours.  But that does not mean he does not feel the spirit, and have direction in his life from above.  He may never conform or agree with what you hold dear, and even if you are the one that is correct, that doesn’t mean he does not have truth in his life—perhaps a great deal of it.  If he has, as part of his belief, that he should be a devoted companion, work hard, be kind, help the less fortunate, and be a good parent, would not our all-knowing Father in Heaven offer him His affirmation in his efforts? Would He not answer his heart-felt prayers and have a presence in his life?  Make no mistake about it, he will be required to eventually accept the fullness of the gospel for full salvation, but his road there may be much different than yours.  Even if he never accepts it, better that he had part of the truth in his life than none at all.

Howard W. Hunter has observed, “In our humble efforts to build brotherhood and to teach revealed truth, we say to the people of the world, we have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue that you possess, we have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you, we have not come here to berate you because of the things you have not done.  But we have come here as your brethren and to say to you, keep all the good that you have and let us bring to you more good in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father. Ours is a perennial religion based on eternal saving truths.  Its’ message of love and brotherhood is lodged in scripture and in the revelations of the Lord to His living prophet.  It embraces all truth.  It circumscribes all wisdom—all that God has revealed to man and all that He may yet reveal.”

“For behold, the spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.” (Moroni 7: 16)

Lessons from the Garden of Eden

One-Liner Lessons We Learn From the Garden of Eden

• ·      The Earth was made for man, not the other way around, although we should take good care of it.
• ·      God was only present Himself on one of the six creative periods, and that was the sixth day—the creation of man, underscoring the importance of this event.
• ·      There ARE other worlds.
• ·      God can and does commune with man.
• ·      Women are to be beside man, not in front or behind.
• ·      In order to be a choice at all, an opposing choice must be available.
• ·      Both Adam and Eve understood that their choice, though difficult, would result in the propagation of man on Earth making it a courageous and unselfish choice.
• ·      The Fall is not a sinful tragedy, but the introduction of knowledge, birth, and death.
• ·      Men and women have differing ways of thinking—while man is more direct and goal-oriented, a woman’s is more intuitive.
• ·      God would not subject mankind with the hardship of earth life and the eventual death of their bodies unless it was their own choice to do so. 
• ·      The result of transgression in the Garden of Eden is that of instruction and warning—the only curse decreed by God therein is to the ground and to Satan.
• ·      Only through agency do we learn that sin bears painful and bitter fruit, and thereby we are enabled to actively choose and embrace the good.
• ·      Taking responsibility for our actions is the first step of repentance.
• ·      The knowledge of good and evil is necessary if we are to become like God.
• ·      Death is a bound put on the state of sin, but even this was remedied through the resurrection.
• ·      Satan’s ruses are often turned into God’s uses.
• ·      Man is much more powerful than Satan.
• ·      Temple covenants and ordinances were made known to Adam and Eve.
• ·      Christ knew and agreed to His part in the entire plan from the very beginning, showing that what was to take place in the garden of Eden was also known from the very beginning—it wasn’t a mistake or the short sidedness of God that changed the plan—it never changed.
• ·      Joy is realized only through obedience and the atonement of Jesus Christ.
• ·      It was necessary for our first parents to be the ones to bring disobedience and all of its resulting lessons into the world, thus enabling them in teaching correct principles to their children.
• ·      The story of Eden embraces and illuminates the entire plan of salvation and the reason for our being here.

Original Sin

The term “original sin”, first used by Tertullian in the 3^rd century and also called ancestral sin, is the widely held Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.  According to this belief, the very act of being born makes man guilty of sin by way of Adam and Eve’s acts in the Garden of Eden.

Much of this is based off of Romans 5:12, "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".  This passage does not say sin or even guilt passed to all men, but death did.

We can sufficiently see from the writings of early Christians such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and from early documents such as the Homilies, the idea of original sin was non-existent with the very early Christians.  It is easy to conclude that this was a doctrine born of the philosophies of men to harmonize with previously formulated doctrines that would otherwise not make sense to them.  Among other things, the loss of the doctrine of deification and of the pre-existence of man, as well as the new teachings on grace and the nature of Christ Himself, motivated the Greek to this conclusion.  As was common to the Greek mind, everything must make sense or it cannot be true.

We can trace the development of this doctrine to the era of Constantine.  Although it was initially difficult for him to swallow, it was Augustine who took the most supportive and even hardline acceptance of this doctrine, introducing the idea of total depravity.  This is the idea that we are not only born into sin, but we cannot even choose not to sin. 

Although there were many departures from this doctrine, it has been a part of mainstream Christianity ever since.  Ironically, some of those who attempted to leave this doctrine re-introduced the idea of a pre-mortal existence to more fully explain their theology.  But even though the doctrine of original sin was admittedly inconsistent, confusing, and appalling, none of the challenges lasted. 

What we are left with is centuries of grief and confusion.  Grief for those who have passed on without baptism, or accepting Christ—the most grievous is the thought of the passing of newborn babies.  I can only imagine the grief of parents, told by their ecclesiastical leader that their unbaptized infant, because of the sin they inherited from Adam, would burn in eternal torment.  It is this idea that caused many to attempt to deviate from it.  And secondly, confusion, in trying to combine original sin with the innate and scriptural idea that God is fair and incapable of this apparent injustice.  In 2007 Pope Benedict officially rescinded this doctrine, but only as it pertained to infants, not adults; and with no scriptural or doctrinal reasoning to back up his decision, not to mention the reason it had been firm doctrine in the first place.  What a mass of confusion and needless heartache!  (Pardon the pun)

Thank goodness for the Restoration!  Unlike many of the doctrines of the Restoration that were brought back and reformulated line upon line, this is one that was strong and consistent from the beginning.  As the 2^nd article of faith states, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adams transgression.”  What a breath of fresh air!  And to explain more fully the need for the circumstances that occurred in the Garden of Eden, the Book of Mormon, as usual, explains with great clarity, “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.  And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created… And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.  But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.  Adam fell that men might be and men are, that they might have joy.”  (2 Nephi 2: 22-25)

The Fall was indeed a fall, but it was a fall forward, not just downward.  The idea that somehow one man, Adam, not only totally messed up God’s plan He had for man, but somehow was able to put a stamp of “sinner” on the forehead of every baby born from then on is atrocious to me.  It was a necessary fall that physically separated us from God for a time.  But in doing so it began the human race and allowed for our trial of faith and the great growth that could occur for every one of those children.  

The reality of a pre-earth life and the infinite nature of the atonement alone (going both forward and backward in time, among other things) makes the idea of original sin untenable.  God knows all from the beginning to the end, and what Adam and Eve did, even Satan’s part in it, was all known and planned on from the beginning.  "The precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb...was foreordained before the foundation of the world." (1 Peter 1: 19, 20)  If the need for Christ and His atonement was known and planned on from the beginning, then the fall of Adam, bringing on the need of it, was as well. 

Now some further explanation from an excellent paper, "Why did Jesus have to die?" found here.

If God did not want man to have a choice, why did he place the fruit of death within his grasp calling it the knowledge of good and evil?  Religious philosophers cannot answer this question. They can only make up reasons and attempt to explain it.   When the man and woman had partaken, the Gods stated that man had become as one of them. (Genesis 3: 22)

Was man's fall a failed effort of a divine creation, or of a short sighted deity? Was God's main plan that mankind live forever in a state of innocent paradise? If this was the case it would make Christ a "plan B" or a back up plan for mankind's salvation? Such is a common explanation of the viewpoint of sectarian Bible scholars and their reasoning.  Their conclusion would lead us to believe that Adam and Eve along with Satan actually thwarted God's original plan.  

Much if not all of historical Christianity has adopted the idea that Adam's transgression was a mistake or even a rebellion.   The New Testament however clearly teaches that Jesus was foreordained to be the Savior of the world.  Would not the fall also be foreordained? Was Adam's fall not part of God's plan?

It is a fairly simple conclusion that Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit would be necessary for the plan of salvation to be implemented.  It is evident that the whole story of Eden and what Adam and Eve knew is not in the Bible.

Adam was not created in a fallen state for a reason.  Yet he had to fall in order for salvation to come. The earth and creation of man was not a random event nor was Adam's choice unanticipated by God. 

Our first parents and we ourselves lived with God before the earth was created in a pre-mortal life.  Many preparations for this life were made at that time. It was then that Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior. 

Adam and Eve were chosen for the purpose of being the first to inhabit the earth.  Through an event dependent on their agency or freedom of choice, man fell from the paradise in the Garden of Eden.   Exposure to the knowledge of good and evil was the result and the only way they could exercise free will, also known as moral agency. This is the concept that we can choose and then be accountable for those choices.  

The knowledge of good and evil was received by partaking of one fruit on the same tree, not two trees in separate gardens.  It was not designated as an evil tree, simply one that had consequences associated with partaking from it.  The consequences were designed by God to allow for mankind to fall into mortality so agency could be given to them.  They would then have the opportunity to receive salvation and exaltation through the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ.  

Neither the creation or the placement of the tree were random events. The availability of this option and partaking in an act of self directed choice was designed by God to advance the human condition not to condemn it.  

God used Satan to advance his purposes by enticing Eve. Would a loving God really condemn humanity for all eternity because of what two individuals did? Did they frustrate the plan of the Almighty?  Orthodox theologian/philosophers have taught this for almost 2000 years.

The fall, however, brings an essential opportunity to gain experience through making choices and learning from the consequences. It is not condemnatory in nature.  The method of redemption was in place before the fall took place.

Without this life and its experiences, we would not receive the experiential knowledge or the physical body necessary for full development. It is through this mortal life that God gives mankind the opportunity to develop their intellect, gain experience and make choices that have real eternal consequences.  All things take place under the umbrella of grace provided by Jesus Christ as creator, his atonement and the perfect justice of his and our Almighty Father. 

See explanation of Romans 5:12 here Just briefly, the Greek translation renders the last part, "because all have sinned." But the Latin has been translated, "In whom all have sinned." This is a mistranslation.  The Greek is more accurate.