Upon the completion of each chapter study (see JST on John 1) of John’s Gospel in Idaho Falls, I will be typing out an inquiry in regards to significant changes made by the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) on the King James Version of the Bible.
Let me share two noteworthy changes in John 2.
1. John 2:4 – the change to the Jesus’ question
The cross-outs in Thomas Wayment’s edition are not nearly so bold as what is printed by Robert Lund. Robert E. Lund in his article, “Women in the Writings of John,” from the book, The Testimony of John the Beloved, writes:
John introduces the reader to Mary early in his Gospel. Because he had been entrusted to care for Mary, presumably until she died, it is likely that the two had many conversations about Jesus and his ministry (see John 19:26-27).[1] Mary’s companionship with John probably influenced his writings. Perhaps that is why John is the only Gospel writer to record the first public miracle at the wedding in Cana. Certainly, John knew the great spiritual strength of Mary and her lifetime of faithfulness.[2] By including Mary at the beginning of his Gospel, John emphasized the important and active role that women played in the ministry of Jesus. Perhaps John also felt it was important to honor his adopted mother, whom he had come to admire while caring for her. Regardless, John began his Gospel with a tribute to Mary’s faith.
John assumes the reader is aware that Mary’s position at the wedding in Cana must have been one of responsibility.[3] Mary’s domestic responsibility is shown by her concern about the lack of wine and by how she commanded the servants in a tone of authority.[4] John is quick to point out that when Mary lacked the resources needed to resolve the problem, her first avenue of relief was to turn to Jesus and request his help. John also assumes the reader knows that Mary had great faith in Jesus and his divine capabilities. When the guests “wanted wine,
the mother of Jesus saithhis mother said unto him, They have no wine” (JST John 2:3; throughout this paper the Joseph Smith Translation is quoted by highlighting in bold the text Joseph Smith added and striking out the parts he deleted). This scripture suggests that when Mary looked to Jesus for help, she was respectfully expecting a miracle.[5] John understood that the pattern for miracles was simple and consistent: first the faith of a righteous person is exercised, and then the miracle is performed.[6] Because of Mary’s faith in the Son of God, the first public miracle followed this same pattern, and Mary’s request was granted by the hand of God.
The Joseph Smith Translation reveals Jesus’ deep honor for his mother, John records, “Woman, what
have I do with theewilt thou have me do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come” (JST John 2:4). The title woman may sound harsh and disrespectful to us, but I believe its use conveys the opposite meaning.[7] One scholar explains that the “address ‘woman’ was so respectful that it might be, and was, addressed to the queenliest.”[8] Another scholar explains that “‘Woman,’ or, rather ‘Lady,’ is in Greek a title of respect, used even in addressing queens.”[9] It was as though Jesus had said, “My lady, whatsoever you ask of me in faith, I will grant it unto you.” Jesus completely honored his mother.
After Jesus responded affirmatively, John chronicles Mary’s great faith as she directs the servants, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, see that ye do it” (JST John 2:5). Her words were clear and unwavering: “Do it!” Do what? Mary’s inspiring command to the servants could be rephrased something like this: “My Son Jesus is going to tell you to do something, and whatever it is, just follow his instructions, and we will all be blessed.”[10]
Mary taught a beautiful lesson as John’s Gospel outlined her simple pattern for resolving problems: when in need, consult Jesus. Mary believed that Jesus had power over the elements and that they would obey him at his command. John used this miracle to teach both the power of a woman’s faith and to reveal Jesus’ true identity as the Creator. This first miracle also teaches that Jesus was interested in the routine pressures that women had to face when hosting a wedding. Jesus honored his mother by helping her with the task at hand (126-127).
In endnote #2, Robert reasons,
John must have known how valiant Mary had been throughout her life. Further, Mary’s mission to raise the Son of God was foreordained in the councils before the world was. Mary is the greatest among women, for she had the honor of bearing and rearing the Son of God so that the Father might be glorified. Who could have a greater calling than mothering the Son of God? Mary is certainly “one of the noblest and greatest of all the spirit offspring of the Father” and the most honored woman in all scripture. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979), 471 (137n2).
In endnote #3, the author explains with a quote by McConkie,
Mary seemed to be the hostess at the marriage party, the one in charge, the one responsible for the entertainment of the guests. . . . Considering the customs of the day, it is a virtual certainty that one of Mary’s children was being married.” Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-73), 1:135 (137n3).
Ogden and Skinner promotes human responsibility in The Four Gospels:
“What wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do” (JST John 2:4). From the beginning to the end of his ministry, the Savior was always attentive to the needs of his mother and solicitous of her. He asked her, just as he asked the brother of Jared, “What will ye that I should do . . . ?” (Ether 2:23). It is the responsibility of humans to do all that humans can do—and then God does the rest. And even before God acts, he expects us to ask, to petition, and to suggest a solution (D&C 9:8) (109).
In light of Joseph’s change to John 2:4, who then becomes the major focus in the verse? Mary or Jesus? In making the alteration, there is lost to the reader the idea that Mary has no manipulative authority over Jesus and that clearly a change in this earthly relationship between mother and Son has taken place. John’s Gospel has Jesus speaking abruptly as the authoritative Son of Man, clearly in charge of his mother, an earthly creature. In contrast, the JST communicates an “attentive” Son, heeding the wishes of his mother, “one of the noblest and greatest of all the spirit offspring of the Father.” This blurs the distinction between mother and Son.
It is John’s Gospel (with the idiom, ti emoi kai soi, literally, what to me and to you?) that does not detract from smoothing over troubling statements by the Messiah. The Lord even gives his reason for such a stinging retort, “Mine hour is not yet come.” Interestingly, Ogden and Skinner do not address the meaning of the latter phrase in the verse.
2. John 2:11 & 2:22 – the change to the verb, believe
I don’t understand why Joseph Smith scratched out the verb “believed on” (episteusan eis) and “believed” (episteusan) and inserted “was strengthened in” and “remembered,” unless as a possibility he felt that John’s Gospel was contradicting Moroni in Ether 12:18. Any suggestions?
By the way, the cutting contrast further on between the Greek expressions in verses 23 and 24 is powerful. Polloi episteusan eis to anoma autou (many believed or trusted in his name”) versus Autos de Iesous ouk episteusen auton autois (“But Jesus did not believe or entrust himself unto them”).
You might say you believe in Jesus, but does He really believe you? He is omniscient. Unlike us, He knows all (John 2:24)—encompassing everything in your heart.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Concern 1
I find your first point so encumbered with quotes that I’m not entirely sure what is concerning you out of them. So I can only look at your concluding 2 paragraphs and assume these are your concerns.
As a good follower of the law and good Israelite, Jesus honoured his mother according to the command. I see that demonstrating that which he usually presented. That fails to attack his mission from my perspective.
“Mine hour is not yet come”. The reason he has said this is because his mission for our Heavenly Father hadn’t begun. Therefore she was still had some hold, as his parent. Once his mission begun he then just did the will of Heavenly Father.
Concern 2
Seeing miracles doesn’t make people “believe in” Christ. A classic case is the scrbes and pharisees. Another is Moses in Egypt with the Israelites having no belief in God, even after all those miracles. Christ teaches this same principle in Luke 16’s story. In verse 31 Jesus declares, “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, theough one rose from the dead.” Joseph Smith has made this very correct division of concepts.
Believing “in” Christ requires faith, followed by action. This action will produce the results God promised, and our faith “in” Christ will increase. So Joseph Smith was attempting to communicate this significant point.
Doug, in good faith, I try to produce lengthy quotes as to provide fuller context. There are some good things mentioned. But you are right in interpreting my last two paragraphs. I am concerned how Mary is elevated in John 2. This misses the thrust of the chapter. It is not about Jesus’ subservience to His mother. Notice Mary’s last words recorded in the Bible. Look who she is pointing to.
Doesn’t John 2 record the sign for the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry? Should we not make a distinction between his initial public ministry and His hour (hora)? And didn’t He always do the will of His Father–remember his behavior when He was 12? John 2 forcefully puts Mary in orbit around the Messiah, not vice versa.
Regarding your fourth paragraph . . . very well put. The grounding for faith is Scripture not miracles. I judge modern-day phenomena in light of the sure word of prophecy. But this does not negate miracles or signs as a valid means to faith, too. His works alongside His words cause people to believe in Him.
But why the JST change to one of the verses when the Scripture (graphe) is the dative to the believed (episteusan)? John’s Gospel is communicating that they were believing Scripture. Right?
I should first point out, relative to this discussion, that Joseph Smith didn’t finish his translation. And stated that he would revise some of the corrections he had made. Therefore this conversation is purely speculative examination for discussion’s sake. A point I should have made initially, in case you weren’t aware. What we are examining is why certain thoughts may have crossed Joseph Smith’s mind. His corrections weren’t generally directed at supplying the original text, but making the ideas taught more understandable. Some of his corrections appear to me to be with the intent to make it more obvious what the intent of the writer was, rather than that any mistakes had been made in translation either. Having qualified that I turn to your concerns.
I can’t understand your concern on this Mary concept. I don’t find the fact that Jesus obeyed the Law of Moses a challenge. Luke 2:51 states regarding Jesus to Mary and Joseph, “and was subject unto them”. And how do you then answer Matt 26:63? It has Jesus not having answered any questions all night until the cheif high priest commands him in the name of almighty God. And in respect of the high priest’s authority he answers? Does this make the chapter about Caiaphas? Let’s have a sensible discussion, please. This is nonsense. It just looks to me like an attempt to find something wrong by inventing false doctrinal demands. Give me something realistic and I’ll discuss it with you.
In regard your second paragraph my comment didn’t state (nor would I have regarded it to have suggested) that Christ wasn’t honouring our Heavenly Father, when he obeyed the Law of Moses command to honour his mother.
Your third paragraph I just think we will have to agree to disagree. I have always seen it that his miracles attracted people to listen to his message. And that by following his message they would see its truth. I think many just saw that he was someone special without any signs. But I would still hold to the scriptures that I have previously quoted, pointing out that they don’t appear to me to present believing in Christ comes from signs.
In regard your last paragraph. Your last question has me a bit lost. Neither version says anything about believing scripture. But why he changed “believed on” to “was strengthened in” is the same as I mentioned previously: Miracles don’t create true belief.
Hi Doug. Greetings to you on this last day of the year. And I do long for my posts to contribute to “sensible discussion.”
Your first paragraph is helpful to me in better understanding your perspective on the JST.
You mentioned, “His corrections weren’t generally directed at supplying the original text, but making the ideas taught more understandable. Some of his corrections appear to me to be with the intent to make it more obvious what the intent of the writer was, rather than that any mistakes had been made in translation either.”
So am I correctly assuming that you don’t believe Joseph Smith’s corrections to the King James Version are giving us necessary, restored revelation to the original text by removing any mistakes placed in there by fallible scribes, etc? Do you view the JST more as a helpful commentary and not to be utilized as a binding authority upon your life?
To help you understand me, I do see the Greek text as a binding authority upon my life. That is why I am so passionate over whether the English words are accurately reflecting the underlying text. The specific words of the text then steer the direction of my translation and interpretation. Does this make sense?
I had just read recently from a reputable BYU professor that the JST helped eliminate the purposeful alterations by corrupt priests in addition to sincere mistakes by the translators. Something like that. But rather than bumble along, I will try to locate the quote, post it, and inquire how that might reflect your position.
You wrote, “I can’t understand your concern on this Mary concept.”
To hopefully help you understand, let me put the discussion in the context of Catholicism. Some would teach that we need to pray to Mary because she has special intercessory power with the Savior. The Lord will specifically bend his ear to listen and heed her petitions as His mother. Jesus’ response to Mary in the KJV John 2:4, properly translating that Semitic idiom, shake the whole Catholic paradigm of Mary’s influential place and power. The New International Version (NIV) John 2:4 tries to make the abruptness a little more palatable to our ears by translating, “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” But the New American Standard Version (NASV) concurs with the KJV. But the JST seems to dovetail nicely with what some Catholics might propose. I think there are two separate trains of thought going on here, so I want to know what interpretation most accurately reflects the Greek words.
In puzzlement, you wrote, “Your last question has me a bit lost. Neither version says anything about believing scripture.”
I am not only thinking of John 2:11 but also the last part of John 2:22, “and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” Joseph Smith crosses out the word, “believed”, and inserts “remembered.” I acknowledge the word “remembered” is in the first part of John 2:22, but why did Joseph Smith desire to continue the word in the second part of the verse?
For me, a straightforward interpretation of the KJV John 2:22 would be the miracle of the resurrection caused true belief in the Scripture.
Am I being more “realistic” in this post? Sometimes, Doug, my wife does tell me to say things over again in order that I make more sense. 🙂
And may it never be that I am trying to “invent false doctrinal demands.” Doug, throw out any interpretation of mine that is not tied closely to the moorings of John’s text.
I wish you a happy new year.
Thanks for the well wishes. I wish you a happy new year, and hope all goes well for you, Todd.
Thanks for the clarifications of direction. Now I know where we are going it makes it easier to get there. Now I understand your concerns I see your reasoning in those doctrinal demands. Sometimes us men seem to fail to communicate as well as we should. I think women are generally better at it. More practice I suppose.
In regard the JST. Although it is sometimes quoted as a thought to consider in classes, it isn’t read instead of the KJV. I have rarely heard it quoted at all. The churh doesn’t claim it to be totally authoritve, as it was unfinished, and needed correcting. Therefore it is a work to consider as a possible alternative to a given section. The BYU professor’s comments don’t conflict with this idea, just mention an additional issue.
I understand the difficulty you express with this, as the concept of Protestantism is that the present 66 books are the ultimate and only authority. If a part of these comes into question where does that leave Protestantism? (Though as a student of texts you must realise that problems exist anyway). It is like me telling a Catholic that the Pope may be wrong sometimes. However, from our point of view, this is just a minor hickup. In fact it could even be said to be an advantage, as it causes a person to think on the changes and their meaning. . Our ultimate source of truth is a continually speaking God. If I desire to know, in full sincerity, the Holy Ghost will reveal it to me. If I have great faith Jesus may appear to me and answer or our Heavenly Father. Better than Strong’s Concordance. Though I use that too.
In regard the Mary issue I was thinking that the only people I could think of that would care less would be the Catholics. You not being one, I had ruled that idea out. But should Joseph Smith have not mentioned this because someone may abuse it? Sex is a classic case of how any good thing can also become an equally bad thing. It doesn’t make the thing bad. That Christ obeyed his mother, and someone may make this into a false religious dogma is sad. But John 2 has Christ obeying his mother whether we want to believe he grizzed in the process or not. So Catholics can use it either way. And they aren’t going to quote the JST as authorisation to do so.
You are right that I was only looking at verse 11, and couldn’t see what you meant about “the scriptures”. I would assume Joseph Smith was thinking that they would have already believed the scriptures. And that it would be more correct to say that they remembered the scripture. The verse is saying that they remembered both that Jesus’ had made a statement and the scripture.
I think our difference with the use of the word “believe” would rest in the difference of our perceptions of what we need to gain eternal life. John 3:15 states that to gain eternal life requires a person believing in Christ. Let’s suppose a rope is dangling over a cliff and the person were commanded by God to go down that rope. The Protestant version of believe is that he ignores his heart. Uses his mind, blocking it to all else and goes down hoping the rope won’t break, or doesn’t go at all. The LDS version of believe has the person’s heart having complete trust in God, and knowing that the rope won’t break.
A person truly believing actually buries the old man, and he never rises again. This distinction seems to be where the problems lies. Joseph Smith, having this latter version of “believe”, used it in an LDS fashion.
Doug, I pulled out a book today from the closet. On the inside cover, these words are personally penned in large, flowing script: “We know these things to be true. Read prayerfully.”
I think the book is a classic among LDS. It is entitled, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to the Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern by James E. Talmage, One of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, published by Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1977.
James uses strong words in his preface back in 1915, “It is particularly congruous and appropriate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the only Church that affirms authority based on specific revelation and commission to use the Lord’s Holy Name as a distinctive designation – should set forth her doctrines concerning the Messiah and His mission” (iii).
On page 145, Talmage teaches on our Scripture, John 2:4, being discussed: “Nevertheless, His words to Mary at the marriage feast may have conveyed a gentle reminder of her position as the mother of a Being superior to herself; even as on that earlier occasion when she had found her Boy, Jesus, in the temple, He had brought home to her the fact that her jurisdiction over Him was not supreme. The manner in which she told Him of the insufficiency of wine probably suggested an intimation that He use his more than human power, and by such means supply the need. It was not her function to direct or even to suggest the exercise of the power inherent in Him as the Son of God; such had not been inherited from her. “What have I to do with thee?” He asked; and added: “Mine hour is not yet come.” Here we find no disclaimer of the ability to do what she apparently wanted Him to do, but the plain indication that He would act only when the time was right for the purpose, and that He, not she, must decide when that time had come. She understood His meaning, in part at least, and contented herself by instructing the servants to whatsoever He directed. Here again is evidence of her position of responsibility and domestic authority at the social gathering.”
Reading this paragraph today, I find that Talmage communicates well what I have been reiterating. John 2 is communicating the superiority of Jesus over Mary. The author also brings up a passage I mentioned earlier – the incident of Jesus as a twelve-year old boy.
Would this be a good question? Does the Spirit-revealed text itself become the deciding authority between one who says the Spirit is communicating to the heart from John 2 a beautiful example of a Son in submission to His mother and another individual who says the Spirit is communicating to the reader that Jesus is supreme over all, even by being contra to His mother’s inward ambitions?
Doug, I don’t oppose where Scripture teaches children obeying their parents or where Jesus completely fulfilled the law. Both of these truths are vital. But John 2:4 is communicating something powerfully distinct, unique, wholly-other about Jesus Christ in comparison to other Jewish family gatherings. He responded in a way where He knew what was in His earthly mother’s heart. Of course, this fits what the Spirit is teaching our hearts in 2006 about the Savior. He always knows the heart issues rumbling within each of us. He knew Mary’s heart. He knew the hearts of the many in John 2:23. And as I soon delve into John 3 on this blogsite, He knew Nicodemus’ heart. And it just continues from there . . . the heart of the woman at the well . . . and so forth.
I love what the Holy Spirit is revealing to me on this first day of the new year 2007 about the Savior. And yes, I agree with you, friend. It is better than just simply gathering facts for my head from a source like Strong’s Concordance.
Doug, your discussion on the word “believe” has me thinking about some things. May I ask you this? Do you primarily gain assurance that you have eternal life from the whole-hearted strength of your faith or the object of your faith?
[I will get back with you on that quote about the JST from Jackson’s book that I have highlighted in today’s main entry on HI4LDS.]
I’m not quite sure why you have quoted Talmage. Was there someting he said that you feel was a major confliction with something I have presented?
Another thing I perhaps should point out is that we have only 5 sets of scripture. The Old Testament of the Jews. The New Testament of the early Saints. The Book of Mormon religious history of the Americas. The Doctrine and Covenants record of early revelation in these latter-days, and the Pearl of Great Price collection of books. Any other books, talks, commentries, magazines, manuals etc are purely speculation, other than when he whom we term “the prophet” receives revelation, and specifically declares it to be so.
I’m not quite sure why you are raising certain issues. Whether you are just discussing it with me, or feel I have some disagreement with you on the issue.
In regard your question of the second last paragraph. There are simplified and deeper answers to the question. You may consider there to be only one answer. To give the simplified answer may fit with a couple of scripture texts, but miss the rest of the message. The prophets and apostles have managed to write many books on the subject. That is what our scriptures are. While the answer naturally focuses around Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father, there are many directions given as compulsory to obtaining the kingdom of heaven, eternal life, forgiveness of sins etc. Any assurance that a person has, to be justified, would have to include ALL the things the scriptures present as essential to that eternal life. So while I may obviously pick the latter of those 2 choices that would be because you haven’t given me some more appropriate choices.
1. Quotes on the importance of the Joseph Smith Translation
Doug, this is the quote on the JST that I was thinking about earlier, though the context is the OT.
Kent Jackson in Lost Tribes & Last Days: What Modern Revelation Tells Us About The Old Testament (Deseret Book, 2005) writes:
“Words attributed to Joseph Smith ascribe changes in the Bible to three categories of individuals: ‘ignorant translators,’ ‘careless transcribers,’ and ‘designing and corrupt priests.’ . . . Moses’ encounter with the devil, restored in the Joseph Smith Translation, is a specific example of something deliberately removed ‘because of wickedness’ (Moses 1:23)” (32). . . .
“Through modern revelation, we also know that Moses knew Christ, that he understood the gospel, and that he knew of Christ’s role as Creator and Redeemer (see Moses 1:6, 32-33; 4:1-4; Mosiah 13:33). But none of these realities are in the Bible. We know that they are true because they were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, mostly as part of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, a process of restoring knowledge that was ‘taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled’ ” (33).
Check out the book. It has been a good seller in our local Super Walmart.
And here is a second source that I have consulted— Joseph Smith and the Doctrinal Restoration (Deseret Book, 2005). Kent contributed a paper, “The Scriptural Restoration.”
He notes, “In June 1830 Joseph Smith began working through the Bible to revise it by inspiration. In an intense biblical encounter that took about three years, he restored to the Bible “precious things” that [had] been lost from it (see I Nephi 13:23-29) and revealed many important truths pertaining to biblical passages, people, and events. . . . As far as can be determined, every book in the Bible was examined, but no changes were made in thirteen of them. On some of the manuscript pages, the Prophet made a later pass (or passes) to revise his original dictation or to add further information until he felt the text was as the Lord wanted it to be” (226).
“Most changes the Prophet made to the biblical text were small rewordings or modernizations of King James language to make the text more clear and understandable for today’s readers. But the most significant changes are the revisions and additions that shed new light on history and doctrine. The following are some important topics that are taught in the JST with greater clarity and precision than they are in the Bible” (227).
Doug, the author lists as examples: The nature of God (John 1:18), The extent and purpose of the Father’s work, The mission of Jesus Christ, The plan of salvation, Satan, The Fall of Adam and Eve, The antiquity of the gospel, Enoch and the establishment of Zion, Melchizedek and his priesthood, The house of Israel, The purpose of animal sacrifice, The law of Moses, The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Degrees of glory (as Joseph Smith was translating John 5) (227-229).
Are Kent’s convictions about the JST beyond what is required to be an orthodox Latter-day Saint? He seems persuaded that all faithful believers must heed and follow the JST of the Bible as the inspired, restored text. But am I gathering from you that this should not be the case?
2. You wrote: “I’m not quite sure why you have quoted Talmage. Was there something he said that you feel was a major confliction with something I have presented?”
Upon reading Talmage, I sensed a completely different interpretation on John 2:4 in comparison to Ogden and Skinner in The Four Gospels. Would you perceive that as well? One interpretation is based off the KJV John 2:4, the other off the JST John 2:4. Who would have the correct interpretation? Or in your opinion, would it matter?
3. You wrote: “Any assurance that a person has, to be justified, would have to include ALL the things present as essential to that eternal life.”
Doug, as a kid, I confess to you that I was often paralyzed with fear. I knew what the law of Christ demanded to enter the kingdom of heaven . . . absolute outward, inward, moral, ethical, mental, volitional, emotional perfection. Every day, I knew how far short I was to matching up to God’s glory. I would lay in my room at night on the floor, sobbing uncontrollably until I had no more tears, wishing death but too afraid to die. The Sermon on the Mount would torture my soul, drowning my heart with choking inadequacy. And anytime glimmers of self-confidence arose as a teenager, James would squash it by thundering, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
Over and over again, I would repent and believe, repent and believe, crying out to the holy, Almighty God that my faith would be more sincere than that of the devils (James 2:19). I would plunge myself into fervent, ongoing, religious activity. Hey, I have even been baptized twice. But through all this my conscience would whip me over my lack of 100% pure belief. It was enough to drive me to the brink of suicide while growing up in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
You wrote: “So while I may obviously pick the latter of those 2 choices that would be because you haven’t given me some more appropriate choices.”
Honestly, Doug, I have no objective assurance from all the religious belief and obedience to the law of Christ that I had inwardly mustered up. But now as an adult, with all my ongoing failings and discouragement over an obedient faith that still needs to grow, I gain absolute assurance in the perfect righteousness of the Object of my faith—the Lord Jesus Christ who completely justifies.
Thanks for letting me share and discuss these things openly with you, Doug.
1 I should first point out that I disagree with Kent Jackson’s belief that the Bible doesn’t demonstrate that Moses understood the gospel.
Assuming these paragraphs reflect his entire opinion on the matter, his belief in the JST isn’t generally shared, no. The JST has only of latter years been inserted into our scriptures as footnotes and an appendix. It is not used as the main text. That should make it sufficiently clear of itself. There is still concern in regard the text, which was owned by the Restored church until recently. Since having the available manuscripts to examine the church has felt more confident about supporting its text, But still has reservations.
I have made personal observations about the text. But these are no more authorative than Kents.
2 The way I use the JST is as a possible alternative. To know which is correct (for myself) I look at the differences, and try to understand Joseph Smith’s reasoning in making this change. In this I have to ask was it just a change he made because he wanted to make the statement more clear, or was this a divinely inspired change over a doctrinal issue? In doing this the Holy Ghost can inspire me as to what it all means. So, to further answer you question, this inspiration would help me know which idea was correct (if either), or what parts of expressed opinions are correct. And if it is a doctrinal issue it certainly would matter.
You may find this doctrinal flexability within the church unusual. That is why I couldn’t see why you had raised Talmage. Unless someone says something ridiculously out there, it is just understood that members (whatever their position) are entitled to their own opinions. Obviously they are not always going to agree. These opinions can be read, considered and prayed about if necessary.
3 That truly is a sad situation. It seems so sad, too, that you were so close to the truth, and yet you missed it. It is like the Spirit lead you to the right places, but you didn’t hear the message. James 2:10 is in the middle of an understanding of this entire subject. I’d suggest a prayful examination of verses 8-12. And the sermon on the mount is the same. In looking at this I think a re-examination of Paul’s statements of Romans 7 would help a lot. In light of the fact that you have only just raised the subject of that chapter, it is like the Spirit is still trying to deliver that message.
Sad situation? I still don’t understand.
Doug, I can justify my righteousness through works before you and my neighbors (this should be) but not God. He sees every hidden corner of my heart.
The law of Christ happened to be the good vehicle that drove my vile, stubborn, prideful heart in those early days (thinking it could contribute a powerful two cents) to the life-giving gospel of Christ. Now, my heart is brand new, born from above (Ez. 36, John 3). Set free! There is 100% assurance from the Spirit, testifying to my heart, of eternal life, celestial glory.
Todd, is this the post you wanted me to read from over at New Cool Thang? I admit, I had forgotten until you recently posted there.
Todd,
I don’t exactly disagree with the concept you have presented in this last post. But i think your view of application, and mine would differ. For example, I would feel that your effort put in more than 2 cents to the fact that you finally found Christ in a spiritual way. Works relative to eternal life (as opposed to only having your sins forgiven) isn’t as simple as yes or no. Consider 2 people. John goes out and sees his neighbour mowing his lawn and having trouble with his heart. In compassion he goes over and does it for him. He is raised that bit closer to being Christ like, and gaining eternal life. Not by his act, but by the growth of love inside through demonstration of compassion. Then let’s look at Judas. He goes out and sees the same. He thinks about all the unchristlike people about the place who are going to hell because they aren’t “Christian” like him. He goes over and does his lawn looking down on those around and glad that he is superior. He is moving further away from Christ and eternal life in spite of his good works.
Even to obtain forgiveness of sins requires something on our part. Firstly we have to truly repent. A person truly repenting goes and doesn’t sin any more. If a person keeps sinning then they haven’t truly repented. In saying this let me qualify that sinning means a transgression of the law. Not “I should have helped him mow his lawn”. The latter is a drive toward good, and eternal life. Use this to motivate yourself for next time. In the church these are sometimes termed “sins of omission”. However this term is just an accepted expression, not a scriptural concept.
Matt,
thanks for popping in. Yes, tell me what you think. Does the Joseph Smith Translation attempt to correct things that appear contradictory in the KJV John 1 or here in John 2? Without the JST on certain verses in John 1 or 2, do you think that people could be led by the Spirit in a straightforward manner to a completely different interpretation?
Doug,
after reading your lawn mowing illustrations on sincere, good-hearted John and insincere, bad-hearted Judas, I am now just wondering really how far or to what degree compassionate John will allow the law of Christ to be intensified in his life before getting angry over the perfect, meticulous scrutiny over every single action, thought, and motive during every day, every minute of his life. On John’s works-faith path to righteousness and gaining eternal life, will he allow the law of Christ to show him his own actual state of darkness and spiritual inability?
I didn’t think myself very bad when I compared myself to the self-righteous “Judas” next door to me, and especially when everybody kept telling me what a “nice, good person” I was. But when I personally stepped into the blazing, holy light of God’s law and heard the ensuing declaration of my spiritual state, the old Todd Wood screamed in self-righteousness denial. Thank God for the mighty gospel of Christ that knew how to take care of the old, stinking jerk. His law slew me and buried me. I had to die. It was that bad though no one else around me knew it. But as I died with Christ, His sufficient, gracious work raised me to newness of life. I have eternal life right now. Where His grace found me, it has now changed me. I am a slave to sin no longer.
Secondly, thinking of your words put in the heart of your story “Judas,” do you think that the law of Christ demands an eternal hell for the heart rebellion against an eternal God? The real Judas in the Bible surely didn’t understand this while living and hearing all those words by Jesus in the first century. It would have been better if the biblical Judas had never been born.
Matt, feel free to respond on the JST on John 1 entry if you would like.
Todd. 1st paragraph.
You’ve quoted me as believing in a “works-faith path to righteousness”. This misses the point I was making about the mowing. Yes, faith is required to motivate a person to do things they believe won’t be in their best interest, that God claims will be. And, yes, works will be 1, a natural result of the change we have made to take on Christ. And 2. a way to get closer to being God like (mixed with the most essential and only compulsory ingredient). The only thing we need be to gain eternal life is to be like our Father in heaven and Jesus Christ. While this is the only compulsory ingredient, two big problems stands in the way _ the fact that BEFORE change we sinned, and the fact that we need sanctification by the Spirit, completely clearing out the old man, and reforming us to be as them.
You’ve asked, “will he allow the law of Christ to show him his own actual state of darkness and spiritual inability?” While I don’t claim to be as sanctified as I hope to eventually be, Christ has atoned for my sins, and so I am no longer in hell. My spirit inside me is full of light, and I enjoy walking around just soaking up the love of God that he has placed in me. I feel them in me. At least 50% of people stop and marvel looking in my eyes, as I walk through a shopping center etc. So I’m left to ask, “what state of darkness?” Spiritual inability I would go along with. As to this, God and I are working on it. I have faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that they will get me there, as long as I stick with their program for me.
2nd paragraph.
I am pleased that you don’t sin any more. This act brings you to a Terrestial state. And this would have you in great joy. Far more than those normally around you in the world enjoy. You feel the love of God. You feel so much better and clean. You should do. For a beginning you have had your sins forgiven and your conscience is cleared. Your spirit in you feels the joy of that cleanness. All that pain being lifted. So how about doubling that wonderful feeling, by gaining eternal life? I know that you express that you have it. But considering Protestantism has no absolute definition that can be judged as being fulfilled, how can you declare such? For example, when I have eternal life I’ll know because I’ll be able to hold entire systems of planets together. You’re purely declaring a hope in your interpretation.
3rd paragraph.
This sounds like you are questioning whether I believe in punishment that never ends. If so let me say that I believe a true fool keeps shooting himself in the foot. Thus doing he will be eternally in pain.
As to Judas, John has nothing nice to say about him whatsoever. Considering the wonderful love that is plainly in John and his close affiliation with Judas, I hold him as being in a far better position to judge than you or I. He calls him a devil, that is good enough for me.
You wrote: I am pleased that you don’t sin anymore.
That is the first time ever someone has told me that, Doug.
I wish it were true.
And to follow up my anonymous post (oops, actually I am at a library computer tonight) . . .
Doug, could you define for me what you mean by “eternal life”?
I’m sorry that you are still sinning. Your 3rd paragraph of you 9:55 pm comment made me feel you must have ceased. In spite of indoctrination to the contrary, anyone can become perfect, as Christ instructed. Christ wasn’t commanding us to do something we couldn’t do, as tradition would claim. The scriptures make it plain that while all HAVE sinned, we need not continue doing so.
In a nutshell, eternal life means that type of life God lives. The concept could be related to our expression of “now that is really living”. We say this when doing something that brings us to a greater height within ourselves. Eternal life is created within us as we are slowly transformed into being like Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. A love of the type they have is required. This love grows in us, to bring us to fulfilled spiritual life.
Doug, I had a Nazarene grandfather who believed Christ wasn’t commanding us to do something we couldn’t do, though he never stated he had reached a state of sinlessness in this life. Have you ever heard of the doctrine of Wesleyan perfectionism? I can see perhaps where Mormonism would seek similar paths to Arminianism because of your interpretational approach to Scripture. I knew the LDS church’s stance on man’s free will / free agency, but I have never had a Mormon friend tell me he was sinless. Do you consider the LDS church authorities sinless? Do any of the twelve or the seventy claim this?
Gathering from your comments so far, would this be an accurate summary? One needs to progressively achieve sinlessness in this life before arriving in the LDS terrestrial sphere. One must progressively achieve godhood before arriving in the LDS eternal life (celestial sphere).
In regard Wesleyan perfectionism. I agree with that concept, and think he was greatly inspired. But I think one aspect of application could be confusing to people. Inward perfection isn’t required at every given moment for a person to be perfect. What is required is that a person doesn’t break the law, having broken inward perfection first on the same issue (note James 2:8-12) . To avoid this it is essential to be very strongly motivated against breaking the inward perfection. So John Wesley is right, but I think misunderstood.
In regard Arminianism. I would also agree with this, provided you keep in mind that this is speaking of forgiveness of sins, not the obtaining of eternal life. I would also have to present that works motivated by faith, produce and increase faith when the wonderful feeling comes from having done what God has said was good. This motivates to more faith and more works. This activity is essential to having the great faith required for the whole thing to work. Thus, while it isn’t the works that save us of themselves, they are an essential ingredient to acheive the true faith ingredient.
I doubt you will have a Saint tell you they are sinless, for all HAVE sinned. But I have not sinned since I can’t remember when. This means I’ve obeyed Christ’s direction to be perfect, as he had just outlined how this is done, and I’ve followed it. This doesn’t mean that I have no flaws to overcome. It means I have no sins to overcome. You would have to ask the 12 about their view of themselves. They haven’t said this, that I’m aware of. But I would hope that they hadn’t sinned of recent years.
As I understand it, a person who isn’t sinning has acheived a Terrestial state, yes.
While some in scripture have stated an assurrance that the path they are on will lead them to eternal life, none have actually claimed to have it there and then. It is a process. Yes, a person having obtained the state of being whereby he would be regarded as having that life in him, would also be a god.
Doug, pick up with me on the new gospel discussion of what it means to be “born again” in John 3.