Did you know the scriptures are biased?

Yes, I’m sorry to have to break it to those who might have maintained pure visions of scriptural objectivity, but the scriptures have a clear and unmistakable bias.

What bias am I talking about? No, it’s not the standard ‘conservative/liberal’ bias as is normally discussed among Democrat/Republican Church members who maintain the scriptures clearly indicate true followers of Christ should belong to one political party…which by an ASTONISHING coincidence, always happens to be the political party to which they themselves currently belong!

(Just once, I’d like to hear some Dem/Rep pundit come out and say, “I’ve read the Book of Mormon and, you know, I just don’t see how my views on morals and social policy match up. I think Mormons really are more suitable for the other party…”)

So, what’s this bias then? From the words of Mormon himself:

Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. (Words of Mormon 1:5)

But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites...cannot be contained in this work (Helaman 3:14)

And there had many things transpired which, in the eyes of some, would be great and marvelous; nevertheless, they cannot all be written in this book; yea, this book cannot contain even a hundredth part of what was done among so many people in the space of twenty and five years; (3 Nephi 5:8)

And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people; (3 Nephi 26:6)

You can probably see a pattern: it’s a given that no matter how meticulous one keeps a record of events—even for one person, let alone an entire nation over hundreds of years—one cannot include everything.

And since you don’t want what’s included and excluded to be completely random, one must be very judicious in what gets kept and what gets thrown out. Mormon notes a number of times that what we’re actually reading is less than one hundredth of what actually happened (probably much, much less…)

Thus our scriptural ‘bias’ is that some things are judged worthy of inclusion, while other things are not. We know that reading scriptures from a historical narrative standpoint, we’re not getting the full picture…and that the inclusions and exclusions were deliberate rather than random.  What criteria did those authors/abridgers use, then, in choosing what hundredth part of God’s dealings with their people to make part of the scriptural record?

The most obvious answer is that the more miraculous the occurrence, the greater likelihood it would be recorded. After all, if you only have a certain number of pages to work with, you’re probably going to start with the most amazing, extraordinary things that happened, and work your way down.

The bias that this creates, though, is that scriptural times to a modern day reader seem to have miraculous visions, healings, and prophecies happening on a daily basis—and by comparison our own lives will probably seem relatively 'miracle-free'.

And this is the point: that’s not necessarily a fair comparison, because we’re not seeing the true (meaning, full) historical record, only a small part of it. And due to reasonable and understandable decisions, that small part is *highly* biased in favor of miracles—almost by definition.

Why is recognition of this ‘bias’ important? Because this disconnect can cause a number of difficulties in making a personal connection with the scriptures: one, it makes scriptural records seem less realistic--more like mythical ‘fables’ that have no relationship with life in the gospel today.   Two, it may make our own life seem ‘separated’ from God, because reading scriptures makes it sound like if we were really living the gospel correctly—and if it were even true, at all—we should be experiencing a similar ratio of miracles in our own life.

The key question, of course, is whether God really provided more direct and obvious miracles in ancient times than now…or if it just seems that way, because the scriptures don’t bother recording all the other mundane stuff.

(This ‘bias’ happens in more modern times as well: when Church members discuss and study the life of Joseph Smith, it sounds like every day brought new visions, revelations, and miracles. The reality is different: we just naturally ignore the mundane parts of his life. If you were to pore over Joseph’s journal of day to day events--as DMI Dave provided back in 2005--you’d see that most days in Joseph Smith’s life were...well, pretty dull.  Kind of like our own lives…)

This ‘bias’ is understandable, yet regrettable in a way, because I believe there’s a place for normal, mundane stories of life in the gospel—the one’s that aren’t ‘interesting’ enough to put in the scriptures, but are useful nonetheless.

From the previous scriptural discussion of Daniel, I reviewed the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who recognized that God might not save them miraculously from harm, but regardless they were not going to worship the king’s golden idol. As it happens, they were saved by miraculous means…and the story was an obvious inclusion in the oral and written records of the time.

What if they had NOT been saved by miraculous means?  They would still have, in fact, demonstrated the same great faith and discipline in staying true to their standards at the risk of their lives…but no one would have ever recorded their story, and we would never have known about their martyrdom. 

How many stories are there throughout human history where great faith and obedience were demonstrated, but no miracle was forthcoming…and no scribe thought the story worthy enough to capture for future generations. What if there were dozens of other faithful believers in SM&A’s time who made righteous decisions and lived their lives in obscurity to everyone but God Himself, but don’t have the opportunity to have their stories known to others.

I think there is a place in the gospel for ‘unmiraculous’ stories—stories where faith without miracles is demonstrated—even though they are not usually interesting enough to share with others.  We prefer amazing stories of angelic visions, divine guidance, miraculous healings (etc) without realizing that they are really the exception and not the rule. And that if we feel we don’t have ‘miracles’ happen in our lives on a daily basis…maybe that’s okay, because it’s entirely possible everyone else throughout human history including great prophets was the same way, even if we generally don’t hear about the boring parts.