What are These "Plain and Precious Things"? (1 Nephi 13:28-29)

[Larry Cotrell]

I am reading through the Book of Mormon for the first time (I am currently in Alma).

Anyway, I have been reminded of this passage from 1 Nephi 13:28-29

 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.  29 And after these plain and precious things weretaken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

I am just curious as to what these "plain and precious things" are that can be found in the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Blackmarch]

Generally the contested things related to doctrine that have split christianity over the last couple millenia, following the death of the apostles. As well as many of the excuses given for leaving the Christian faith.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Blackmarch

[james12]

We do not know all the plain and precious truths that were lost. However, Joseph Smith restored some of them. To give you a feel we can look at the book of Genesis and portions Joseph brought to light.

Moses writings regarding his confrontation with Satan, a more complete account of the creation, more details regarding Cain and Able, a more complete account of Enoch and God's compassion for his children, the City of Enoch, Noah. (Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price)

A more complete understanding of the everlasting covenant between God and man. (Gen 9:21-25 Joseph Smith Translation)

Important information regarding priesthood and Melchizedek. (Gen 14:25-40 JST)

Further prophecies of Joseph regarding his seed. (Gen 50:24-38 JST)

Of course there are many more but this is a beginning to give you a feel.

[bytebear]

I always assumed it was things like age of accountability for baptism, priests requiring marriage (plain) and temple rituals, work for the dead (precious).  Many other, but really, just basic doctrines.  The concept of the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost is clearly a Biblical principle, but I have found Christians are unfamiliar with the notion.

Edited September 12, 2016 by bytebear

[Sunday21]

The dangers of priest craft (being paid to preach)

the folly of infant baptism

the need for both faith and works

 

[Larry Cotrell]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

the need for both faith and works

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Guest]

James chapter 2: Faith without works is dead.

Again I feel like you are arguing against LDS doctrine in a place meant for learning about LDS beliefs.

[Larry Cotrell]

4 hours ago, Eowyn said:

James chapter 2: Faith without works is dead.

Again I feel like you are arguing against LDS doctrine in a place meant for learning about LDS beliefs.

All I did is post a Bible verse, I don't think that's arguing LDS doctrine. But I will stop posting Bible verses if I'm not supposed to.

[Guest]

It's not the posting scriptures that makes it seem that way, it's the cherry picking and posting to argue for what you think. But I think you know what I'm talking about.

[estradling75]

32 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

All I did is post a Bible verse, I don't think that's arguing LDS doctrine. But I will stop posting Bible verses if I'm not supposed to.

If you are at all versed in the scriptures like you would like us to think you are you would know that there are plenty of scriptural verses that go back and forth on the whole faith/works/grace debate...  Eowyn easily cited one.

You can cite scriptures... but when you know that there are other biblical scriptures that counter your point and you ignore them it shows it shows a fundamental dishonesty in your motivations.

Edited September 12, 2016 by estradling75

[Larry Cotrell]

I am well aware of James 2 and have spent time studying this chapter and what it means. I would love to discuss this with you, @estradling75, but I have been informed not to.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[estradling75]

20 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I am well aware of James 2 and have spent time studying this verse and what it means. I would love to discuss this with you, @estradling75, but I have been informed not to.

And many of us have also spent time studying James and Ephesians and the rest of the New Testament and the Old Testament....  And so when someone like @Sunday21 or other posters here makes a comment, it not because we are ignorant of the scriptures you like drop.  We are not ignorant.  We have a solid understanding of them and how they fit in the context of the rest of the scriptures the Lord has given us.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Larry - are you aware of other LDS forums that allow debate?  Mormondialogue.com (run by mormons) thrives on disagreement and debate.  Mormondiscussions.com (run by critics) has different boards rated G, PG-13, R, and unrated, so you can pick the level of scholarliness/nastiness that suits your fancy.  If you're interested in telling a bunch of mormons that we're wrong suggesting notions about Christianity that mormons may benefit from considering, a forum like those would be the place to do it. 

LDS.net is not the place to do it.  

For the record, I LOVE debating religion.  I've sought out and engaged critics of my faith for almost 20 years now.  I was on the Reachout Trust countercult forums while they were around.  I occasionally go to Catholic Answers and see how long I can stand against entire groups in their Non-Catholic Religions board.  I remember the old Zarahemla's Lighthouse board, where everyone had been at it for so long, and knew all the arguments so well, a group of LDS and critics once decided to change sides just for a week and argue the other side's case, just to see how it felt.  

Again, lds.net is a place where people can learn about what mormons believe, and interact with mormons. It is not a place to advocate for various notions held by non-LDS Christians.  

It's obvious to everyone here, you've not interested in learning, but in educating/correcting/persuading.   When you refuse to admit it, you're not fooling anyone.  Your decision to read the BoM is commendable, even though it's apparent your purpose is to refute it.  There's nothing wrong with learning about the folks with which you disagree, it makes it better to argue and persuade.  But I read your posts, they just scream "dood isn't here to learn or accept".  

Figure out what you want to do with us Mormons, then go find the right venue to do it.  

Edited September 12, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

To paraphrase the words of someone's daughter, "We have attended many rodeos."

[Anddenex]

35 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I am well aware of James 2 and have spent time studying this verse and what it means. I would love to discuss this with you, @estradling75, but I have been informed not to.

22 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I am well aware of James 2 and have spent time studying this verse and what it means. I would love to discuss this with you, @estradling75, but I have been informed not to.

The initial question was what are plain and precious truths missing. There were three other people who mentioned plain and precious truths that have been lost and now restored; however, the first precious truth lost which you responded to (which confirms to us as LDS a precious truth lost) is "Faith without works is dead." Out of all the precious truths restored, the one you respond to is a standard "Anti-Mormon" debate (note: not calling you anti-Mormon; although it begs the question as you immediately respond to the grace and faith debate, instead of the others), which leads no where except individuals sharing what they believe.

Honestly think for a moment, out of all the precious truths mentioned by three previous posters the one responded to is a known anti-Mormon focal point; almost like you were waiting, just waiting, for someone to mention the need for faith, grace, and works so you can then say, "Perfect, Ephesians 2:8-9."

Thus, rhetorically, Eowyn responds with James 2: 17. If you post in a forum "Learn about the Mormon Church" and the first response you respond to is centered in the "faith, works, and grace" debate, rather than "learning" then for a good number of us this questions the sincerity of the original question.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

.  We are not ignorant.  We have a solid understanding of them and how they fit in the context of the rest of the scriptures the Lord has given us

With all due respect @estradling75, I think it's fair to say that LDS know more about the scriptures than almost any other church out there. 

[NeuroTypical]

Oh, I dunno about that, but I'd sure as heck place LDS mastery of Old Testament scriptures against any Christian faith.  

I applaud those Christians who focus on Christ so energetically.  Occasionally I envy it and try to increase it in myself. But yeah, there's a heck of a lot more to the OT than Adam/Eve, Noah, Jonah, and those cherrypicked verses from Leviticus condemning homosexuality. 

Didja know they had to create a new verb tense for Isaiah?  "Prophetic Perfect" = talking about future events in the past tense. 

[zil]

Historically, I usually only read the OT when Sunday School gets around to it, and have found it difficult in the past.  Earlier this year, I decided to make the OT the focus of my personal study (between studying for lessons), and have been quite surprised to find:

1. It's more interesting than I remembered
2. It's less difficult than I remembered
3. It is full of the generosity of God (contrary to all those folks who focus almost exclusively on violence)
4. The "Nephite Promise" (obey and you will prosper) should perhaps have been called the "Israelite Promise".

I'm sure more fun is in store.

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Didja know they had to create a new verb tense for Isaiah?  "Prophetic Perfect" = talking about future events in the past tense. 

Is anyone else reminded of Douglas Adams and various time-travel verb tenses?

[Larry Cotrell]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Larry - are you aware of other LDS forums that allow debate?  Mormondialogue.com (run by mormons) thrives on disagreement and debate. 

Thank you, @NeuroTypical, I just opened an account on Mormondialogue.org

Edited September 12, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[bytebear]

Frankly, I find on any forum, the point when a standard anti-Mormon statement is made (and yes, yours was textbook), everyone yawns, posts the standard rebuttal, and both sides talk past each other. It would be far more productive to say, "Why do you believe what you do, and then repeat the belief to your understanding, so that at least, if you don't agree, you understand why we believe and accept that we have well reasoned justifications for those beliefs.

Edited September 14, 2016 by bytebear

[Larry Cotrell]

46 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Frankly, I find on any forum, the point when a standard anti-Mormon statement is made (and yes, yours was textbook), everyone yawns, posts the standard rebuttal, and both sides talk past each other. It would be far more productive to say, "Why do you believe what you do, and then repeat the belief to your understanding, so that at least, if you don't agree, you understand why we believe and accept that we have well reasoned justifications for those beliefs.

All that I did was post Ephesians 2:8-9. Also, I would like to add that my statement was not really my statement, it was Paul's. If you think that my statement was "anti-Mormon," don't be frustrated with me, be frustrated with Paul. He is the one that wrote it, not me.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

What was my "anti-Mormon" statement?

A little background of LDS beliefs so that I can properly address this question.  LDS acknowledge both the Ephesians verse and the James verse.  Yes, salvation is a gift which we could NEVER work towards.  That being said, faith without works is dead.  If a person claims to love God, but refuses to keep His commandments (or even attempts to with His help and forgiveness), their faith is dead.  A person should give their ENTIRE self to God: faith AND works.  

Now for background of previous rodeos: there are some Evangelicals which LOVE to come up to Mormons and saying essentially "Don't you know you can't work your way to Heaven!  Haven't you ignorant fools ever read the Bible!?"  So the LDS person then rolls their eyes, forgives the person for their insults, and says "I don't believe you can work your way to Heaven, and I've studied the Bible for years".  And then the person usually rambles something very uniformed.   During the course of these rodeos, I've literally had people tell me that I a Hellhound because I believe a follower of Christ needs to go through the action of accepting Christ (let alone repenting or being baptized).  

Anyway, about the 300th person to come up the exact same conversation with the Ephesians verse, you get a rather sick of it and just shut it down.  Note: I am being quite literal about the 300 number.  It happens that often.  So when you start with that verse here, everyone just shut down and doesn't want to do another stupid rodeo.  Now is this the best course of action?  Maybe not.  But it's the very natural human reaction.

[bytebear]

56 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

All that I did was post Ephesians 2:8-9. Also, I would like to add that my statement was not really my statement, it was Paul's. If you think that my statement was "anti-Mormon," don't be frustrated with me, be frustrated with Paul. He is the one that wrote it, not me.

I am frustrated because you are only focusing on the first part of what I said, and completely ignored the advice given in the second half of my post.  I agree with Paul.  I don't think your context conveys his understanding, however.  Rodeo, round 301.

Edited September 14, 2016 by bytebear

[Larry Cotrell]

36 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I am frustrated because you are only focusing on the first part of what I said, and completely ignored the advice given in the second half of my post.  I agree with Paul.  I don't think your context conveys his understanding, however.  Rodeo, round 301.

I have not been sitting behind my computer for the last two days trying to "argue my point" as everyone makes it sound. I posted a Bible verse on Sunday night and have been trying to "defend" myself (for lack of a better word). You can go back and read all of my posts in this thread. When the moderators told me to back down, I did. Even when I was challenged this was my response:

On 9/12/2016 at 8:25 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

I am well aware of James 2 and have spent time studying this chapter and what it means. I would love to discuss this with you, @estradling75, but I have been informed not to.

I wanted to discuss this and bring up more scriptures but I didn't. I was informed this was not the proper forum (or website) for this discussion. So I had to say no, I will not discuss this with you. I don't know what else you want me to do.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Just_A_Guy]

Going back to the OP a little bit--I think the idea of bringing back plain and precious truths that were completely lost, is perhaps a little bit of a misnomer.  Two millennia of Christianity have produced so many doctrinal approaches and variants and "heresies", that I would venture to guess that there are very few "Mormon" teachings that don't have some analogue somewhere in Christian history--whether it be Catholicism, Luther's writings, Arius' "heresies", Emanuel Swedenborg's visions, or various apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts.

What the Book of Mormon (as well as additional Mormon writings) actually does, in many regards, is resolve many of the ambiguities that existed in the Bible as we now have it or within Christianity itself.  Thus you get very good narratives of the Fall (2 Ne 2), of the purpose of life and the nature of God's justice and the role of death in God's plan (Alma 40-42), of the way and conditions on which God reveals Himself to humankind (Moroni 7), of the mode and purpose of baptism (2 Nephi 31), of the role of the Law of Moses versus the Gospel of Christ (Mosiah 12-16), and so on.

It's no coincidence that early Mormon critic Alexander Campbell sardonically observed:

Quote

This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man.