Comments on: Time to Study the Old Testament…Again – Part 5 – “Plain and Precious Things” http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/ A weekly podcast exploring Mormon culture and current events. Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Lglarsen http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-158897 Lglarsen Sun, 18 Sep 2011 00:51:00 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-158897 Brotherhood of Man Plan of Salvation (Pre-, Current- and Post-Earth Life) Brotherhood of Man
Plan of Salvation (Pre-, Current- and Post-Earth Life)

]]> By: MH http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-126022 MH Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:33:33 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-126022 Jeff, you Talmage quote, <i>"we find the Church itself apostate, boasting of temporal power, making its own laws,"</i> I think William Law wrote the same thing about Joseph Smith in the Expositor... :) When we look at the Bible, I think it's important to remember that these editors of the Bible (as the Documentary Hypothesis refers to), weren't trying to erase evidence of Christ at all. In the case of Josiah and Baruch, it could very well be that these 2 wanted a specific kind of Judaism, and "finding" (or planting, as some scholars think) the book of Deuteronomy gave Baruch and Josiah just the sort of priesthood that was more absent in the other 4 books of Moses. It could be that Baruch was one of these editors who added and took away plain and precious truths that Joseph talks about in the 8th article of faith. Since they lived 700 years before the birth of Christ, they'd have no reason to remove references to him. So, we shouldn't be so focused on Christianity to see that some of these editors could have been seriously messing with Judaism. Some of these lost/changed scriptures could have been lost centuries prior to Christ. Jeff, you Talmage quote, “we find the Church itself apostate, boasting of temporal power, making its own laws,” I think William Law wrote the same thing about Joseph Smith in the Expositor… :)

When we look at the Bible, I think it’s important to remember that these editors of the Bible (as the Documentary Hypothesis refers to), weren’t trying to erase evidence of Christ at all. In the case of Josiah and Baruch, it could very well be that these 2 wanted a specific kind of Judaism, and “finding” (or planting, as some scholars think) the book of Deuteronomy gave Baruch and Josiah just the sort of priesthood that was more absent in the other 4 books of Moses. It could be that Baruch was one of these editors who added and took away plain and precious truths that Joseph talks about in the 8th article of faith. Since they lived 700 years before the birth of Christ, they’d have no reason to remove references to him. So, we shouldn’t be so focused on Christianity to see that some of these editors could have been seriously messing with Judaism. Some of these lost/changed scriptures could have been lost centuries prior to Christ.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-126011 Jeff Spector Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:57:26 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-126011 BiV, The Book of Jasher has been very popular in LDS Church circles. I even remember a Gospel Doctrine teacher teaching from it in our Ward. I suppose the JS reference is one reason. The copy of the book that I have seems to indicate it is published around 1840. It appears to be a photo reproduction. Scholars tend to put this translation of the Book of Jasher as part of the pseudepigrapha. In others words, a false version of the real book. But it is very interesting reading. BiV,

The Book of Jasher has been very popular in LDS Church circles. I even remember a Gospel Doctrine teacher teaching from it in our Ward. I suppose the JS reference is one reason.

The copy of the book that I have seems to indicate it is published around 1840. It appears to be a photo reproduction.

Scholars tend to put this translation of the Book of Jasher as part of the pseudepigrapha. In others words, a false version of the real book. But it is very interesting reading.

]]> By: Bored in Vernal http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-126008 Bored in Vernal Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:25:28 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-126008 Jeff, I agree with your conclusions. I happened to notice in your list of lost books "the Book of Jasher." One of the Restoration Churches called the Nephite Church of Christ has this to say about it: <blockquote>The Nephite Order: The Code of Doctrine & Discipline of the Nephite Church of Christ includes Sefer ha-Yashar as part of the Deposit of Faith. The Sefer ha-Yashar is considered to be "deemed by the Holy Spirit to be worth of study and obedience." [see entry entitled Deposit of Faith]</blockquote> Also they point out that "Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, wrote in Times and Seasons, Sept. 1, 1842, in reference to the patriarch Abraham: "the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans". (External Link: Times and Seasons, Volume 3, Number 21.)" Here's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=rW_UAoyK91MC&dq=sefer+ha+yashar&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=0kQjAAObMU&sig=xLt720qGwMWAOgImrEwz0J-bl3M&hl=en&ei=j4dGS6OAMY2YtgfSmPX8AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false" rel="nofollow">a link</a> to a copy which was published in SLC in 1887. Jeff, I agree with your conclusions.

I happened to notice in your list of lost books “the Book of Jasher.”
One of the Restoration Churches called the Nephite Church of Christ has this to say about it:

The Nephite Order: The Code of Doctrine & Discipline of the Nephite Church of Christ includes Sefer ha-Yashar as part of the Deposit of Faith. The Sefer ha-Yashar is considered to be “deemed by the Holy Spirit to be worth of study and obedience.” [see entry entitled Deposit of Faith]

Also they point out that “Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, wrote in Times and Seasons, Sept. 1, 1842, in reference to the patriarch Abraham: “the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans”. (External Link: Times and Seasons, Volume 3, Number 21.)”

Here’s a link to a copy which was published in SLC in 1887.

]]> By: Blain http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-126002 Blain Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:09:31 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-126002 I think we need to remember that there was no such thing as "The Bible" when the texts in it were being written. It's not like Moses went out and bought a great big book with blank pages and started writing at the front, and passed it down until John finished writing Revelation and the pages ran out, so The Bible was finished (that's more the way the BoM worked, but even that required abridging to get to what we have now). None of the authors was self-consciously writing intending that what they wrote would be compiled next to the other collected books. Or, as Sir Leigh said in the Davinci Code, God didn't send down the Bible on his fax machine. I think we need to remember that there was no such thing as “The Bible” when the texts in it were being written. It’s not like Moses went out and bought a great big book with blank pages and started writing at the front, and passed it down until John finished writing Revelation and the pages ran out, so The Bible was finished (that’s more the way the BoM worked, but even that required abridging to get to what we have now). None of the authors was self-consciously writing intending that what they wrote would be compiled next to the other collected books.

Or, as Sir Leigh said in the Davinci Code, God didn’t send down the Bible on his fax machine.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125984 Jeff Spector Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:13:41 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125984 Rico, Excellent point, the JST would not match as well with the NIV or RSV, etc. Rico,

Excellent point, the JST would not match as well with the NIV or RSV, etc.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125982 Jeff Spector Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:12:39 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125982 Larrin, Let's not forget, Jesus Christ is a Greek name and title. His real name would have been Yeshua Ben Yosef meaning Joshua son of Joseph. No doubt the BoM was translated to read Jesus Christ but I doubt that is the way it was written in the original language. Larrin,

Let’s not forget, Jesus Christ is a Greek name and title. His real name would have been Yeshua Ben Yosef meaning Joshua son of Joseph. No doubt the BoM was translated to read Jesus Christ but I doubt that is the way it was written in the original language.

]]> By: Larrin http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125959 Larrin Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:25:17 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125959 In my post above it appears I am confused between Christ and Messiah, I know they are the same. I was attempting to refer to prophecies of the "name of Christ" or more particularly Jesus Christ. In my post above it appears I am confused between Christ and Messiah, I know they are the same. I was attempting to refer to prophecies of the “name of Christ” or more particularly Jesus Christ.

]]> By: Larrin http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125958 Larrin Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:23:15 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125958 I don't necessarily think the "original Old Testament" contained references to Christ. The only example we have of rejecting Jesus Christ is in the Book of Mormon with the anti-Christs. You could read those sections of the BoM for a possible mentality that would lead to Christ's name to be removed from the sacred books. If you believe the Documentary Hypothesis and other ideas that large portions of the OT were written or redacted in various later times than it is possible that an anti-Christ movement could have started in one or more of these periods. However this is just conjecture and I don't really believe it myself. In general I see most of the references added by the JST to Jesus Christ in the OT as doctrinal additions to help us along, and not necessarily historical originals. References to the Messiah are the most concrete prophecies of Christ that we have. Other more obscure prophecies allow us to see Christ in the OT, but ancient Jews wouldn't have necessarily seen the Messianic tones in them. I don’t necessarily think the “original Old Testament” contained references to Christ. The only example we have of rejecting Jesus Christ is in the Book of Mormon with the anti-Christs. You could read those sections of the BoM for a possible mentality that would lead to Christ’s name to be removed from the sacred books. If you believe the Documentary Hypothesis and other ideas that large portions of the OT were written or redacted in various later times than it is possible that an anti-Christ movement could have started in one or more of these periods. However this is just conjecture and I don’t really believe it myself. In general I see most of the references added by the JST to Jesus Christ in the OT as doctrinal additions to help us along, and not necessarily historical originals. References to the Messiah are the most concrete prophecies of Christ that we have. Other more obscure prophecies allow us to see Christ in the OT, but ancient Jews wouldn’t have necessarily seen the Messianic tones in them.

]]> By: Rico http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125955 Rico Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:04:07 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125955 I wonder whether it is tied to the very fact that we have the JST. If we used a different version, how would the JST fit in with it. I suspect that this reason is the main one, it does not apply to othe countries because the translation problem is already there. but doing it for us it creates issues up front. I wonder whether it is tied to the very fact that we have the JST. If we used a different version, how would the JST fit in with it. I suspect that this reason is the main one, it does not apply to othe countries because the translation problem is already there. but doing it for us it creates issues up front.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125954 Jeff Spector Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:57:08 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125954 Mike S, It seems odd to me in light of the JST and how much the church has promoted it in recent times. In addition, several GAs have quoted from other translations of the Bible in General Conference. Plus the fact, that the KJV is the English translation we use. Other languages use different versions. Mike S,

It seems odd to me in light of the JST and how much the church has promoted it in recent times. In addition, several GAs have quoted from other translations of the Bible in General Conference.

Plus the fact, that the KJV is the English translation we use. Other languages use different versions.

]]> By: Mike S http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125948 Mike S Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:39:51 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125948 There are translations of the Bible available today that use sources closer to the "original" than those available to the translators of the KJV centuries ago. If our true attempt is to restore as many of the "plain and precious" truths as those contained in the original documents, doesn't it seem a bit odd that we cling to the KJV? There are translations of the Bible available today that use sources closer to the “original” than those available to the translators of the KJV centuries ago. If our true attempt is to restore as many of the “plain and precious” truths as those contained in the original documents, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that we cling to the KJV?

]]> By: Rico http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/07/time-to-study-the-old-testament%e2%80%a6again-%e2%80%93-part-5-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cplain-and-precious-things%e2%80%9d/#comment-125947 Rico Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:04:05 +0000 http://mormonmatters.org/?p=8988#comment-125947 I recall reading that Jack Welch believed there were three dimensions to this loss of plain and precious truths. I think he argued that the first step was a loss of meaning, teh second step was a loss of understanding the covenants and that the two of these meant that certain pasaages were removed because they were seen to be un-important. I have no problem with these three explanations. However, I think if we take this view too far then we can end up thinking that when we put a christian spin on a passage that we are restoring the plain and precious truth. Moreover, I think we make more out of this idea than we need to. I would argue that the same clause (as far as it is translated correctly) should also apply to the BoM. The writers themselves seem to do so. I recall reading that Jack Welch believed there were three dimensions to this loss of plain and precious truths. I think he argued that the first step was a loss of meaning, teh second step was a loss of understanding the covenants and that the two of these meant that certain pasaages were removed because they were seen to be un-important.

I have no problem with these three explanations. However, I think if we take this view too far then we can end up thinking that when we put a christian spin on a passage that we are restoring the plain and precious truth.

Moreover, I think we make more out of this idea than we need to. I would argue that the same clause (as far as it is translated correctly) should also apply to the BoM. The writers themselves seem to do so.

]]>