KJV vs JST

[Just_A_Guy]

So, here’s my semi-official take as a forum mod:

The site rules are what they are—and they are both broadly worded, and very stringent.  Other forum members have already referred to the rules in question, and we stand by those.

Every now and again the mods may choose to put up with a “borderline” post from a newcomer who the mods presume (or, hope) is acting in good faith, because there is belief that in general most criticisms of the Restored Gospel can be engaged and refuted through additional discussion that is reasonable, informed, and honest.

However, when a newcomer declines to thoroughly engage with the responses offered, writes disingenuous partial-rebuttals, makes crap up, throws a plethora of  atopical bombshells on a multitude of topics, reveals themselves to be willfully and incorrigibly ignorant about the topic under discussion, and/or devolves into patent mudslinging either about past LDS figures or current forum members; moderatorial patience wears thin.

All parties may comport themselves accordingly.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

John 4 says "God is a Spirit" and 1700+ years later Joseph Smith changes it to "God has promised us His Spirit".  Why should we trust him?  

A more interesting question might be, “Why should I trust John 4?”.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

The concept is not difficult.  I studied french for 7 years, spanish for 2, german for 1.  I regularly listen to youtube sermons in french.

You hear that, Carb? He has seven years of French! Seven whole years! Think you can keep up?

[Klaymen]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

Such a belief is exactly why I would become agnostic or even atheist if I for some reason decided that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were not the true Church of Christ.  If I can't expect to be able to go to God and get an answer, then I should give up as there is no hope to ever come to a reasonable conclusion about the truth.  Why so many people can't see that is completely baffling to me.

I'm on a discussion forum of actuaries who are more atheist than not, it's quite something.  They can be downright vicious.

While God does speak to his followers, I think there is a line between what God is actually saying and what I am feeling or thinking or believing or wanting to believe.  It is not easy to divide between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).  We very much can get in the way of God, myself included for sure.  

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

 

Or you could replace the word "Creedal" with "Joseph Smith", right? 

But Joseph Smith is the filter through which you view scripture, so you are looking to a man for truth.   Of course, you could say the same thing about the KJV as is.  

John 4 says "God is a Spirit" and 1700+ years later Joseph Smith changes it to "God has promised us His Spirit".  Why should we trust him?  I suppose I might need to find other examples.

I got to be VERY blunt here:

My testimony is NOT based on Joseph Smith or any other man (including all prophets of God) and find you repeated insertions here to be horribly offensive.  

My testimony is that I directly received from God myself.  When I got/get down on my knees and ask the Almighty myself.  

 

No one here is asking you to "just talk our word for it" or "just trust Joseph Smith".  NO.  Rather you if you want to know the Truth unquestionably for yourself, then we say "ask God and listen to Him".      Anything less is looking towards men and sinful. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

I got to be VERY blunt here:

My testimony is NOT based on Joseph Smith or any other man (including all prophets of God) and find you repeated insertions here to be horribly offensive.  

My testimony is that I directly received from God myself.  When I got/get down on my knees and ask the Almighty myself.  

My thoughts completely 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

You hear that, Carb? He has seven years of French! Seven whole years! Think you can keep up?

LOL!!

Well, I only had three.  So, probably not?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[person0]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

While God does speak to his followers, I think there is a line between what God is actually saying and what I am feeling or thinking or believing or wanting to believe.  It is not easy to divide between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).  We very much can get in the way of God, myself included for sure.  

Okay.  So how is that any different than what we have been saying?  I suggest that what you think and what you want to believe is getting in the way of God revealing the truth of the Restored Gospel to you.  You suggest the opposite.  That still doesn't address the fact that if you can't trust your personal revelations from God, you might as well give up.  What other way can be trusted to discern the truth?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

I'm on a discussion forum of actuaries who are more atheist than not, it's quite something.  They can be downright vicious.

While God does speak to his followers, I think there is a line between what God is actually saying and what I am feeling or thinking or believing or wanting to believe.  It is not easy to divide between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).  We very much can get in the way of God, myself included for sure.  

And that is what I have described many times with my "fisherman's float" analogy.  I won't go into it at the moment.

But the lesson is that part of why we're here on this earth is to learn how to listen to the Spirit more than our own desires.  Yes, we have been given intellect, senses, and the ability to learn, recognize, and reason.  And we should certainly use all those.  But there have been times when I've received such a strong impression to do something that all my earthly senses tell me not to, that I am very tempted to go my own way.

But luckily, many of those times, I've obeyed that prompting. And not immediately, nor even in one or two years, but eventually, every one of them proved to be correct promptings.

[Klaymen]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I got to be VERY blunt here:

My testimony is NOT based on Joseph Smith or any other man (including all prophets of God) and find you repeated insertions here to be horribly offensive.  

My testimony is that I directly received from God myself.  When I got/get down on my knees and ask the Almighty myself.  

 

No one here is asking you to "just talk our word for it" or "just trust Joseph Smith".  NO.  Rather you if you want to know the Truth unquestionably for yourself, then we say "ask God and listen to Him".      Anything less is looking towards men and sinful. 

I wasn't referring to your testimony.  I was referring to the JST.  You were talking about the "lens" through which Christ's words recorded.  The Book of Mormon and the JST came through the "lens" of JS.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

 

While God does speak to his followers, I think there is a line between what God is actually saying and what I am feeling or thinking or believing or wanting to believe.  It is not easy to divide between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).  We very much can get in the way of God, myself included for sure.  

We aren’t actually that far apart, conceptually.  Within Mormonism there’s an ongoing tension between the text of scripture, the teachings of people we regard as latter-day prophets, and what we take to be the voice of God speaking to us individually.  A lot of ink had been spilled in LDS circles about trying to harmonize those three sources of divine instruction, determine whether any one source trumps any other, and figuring out how to reconcile apparent conflicts and develop a sort of theological “best-fit line”.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Klaymen]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Quote my "hissy fit". Show that I "had an amazing hissy-fit" on that occasion. If you cannot demonstrate such a thing—and you will not be able to, because it is a bald-faced lie—I expect* an open admission of your duplicity.

*Actually, I do not expect it. I expect quite the opposite. An open admission of error would be given only by an honest man of integrity.

Quote

 

Please, stop this thread right now. Seriously. Please just stop. This is not the type of thing that ought to be speculated on. Please just let it die. Anything you write will just embarrass you, anyone who reads it, and Latter-day Saints in general.

You know not whereof you speak. You know nothing. Please, do not go this direction. No good can possibly come of such speculation. At absolute best, you will prove yourself ignorant and foolish. That is literally the best possible outcome. More likely, you will erode the foundations of people's testimonies and expose the Saints to shame and ridicule.

Please stop this foolish speculation. It is counterproductive. Please just let it die.

 

You seem traumatized by dissenting opinion.

 

 

 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Klaymen said:

I wasn't referring to your testimony.  I was referring to the JST.  You were talking about the "lens" through which Christ's words recorded.  The Book of Mormon and the JST came through the "lens" of JS.

NO.

Again, it's not about trusting JST or Joseph Smith or even trusting the Bible itself.  I got down on my knees and asked GOD "what is the correct understanding of this verse?".

You keep saying "you're just trusting JS is grossly inaccurate and insulting.  I got on my knees and asked GOD. 

If you want to know for yourself, stop trusting and instead ask God yourself.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Klaymen]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We aren’t actually that far apart, conceptually.  Within Mormonism there’s an ongoing tension between the text of scripture, the teachings of people we regard as latter-day prophets, and what we take to be the voice of God speaking to us individually.  A lot of ink had been spilled in LDS circles about trying to harmonize those three sources of divine instruction, determine whether any one source trumps any other, and figuring out how to reconcile apparent conflicts and develop a sort of theological “best-fit line”.

Wow thanks for some honesty.

[Vort]

Just now, Klaymen said:

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Quote my "hissy fit". Show that I "had an amazing hissy-fit" on that occasion. If you cannot demonstrate such a thing—and you will not be able to, because it is a bald-faced lie—I expect* an open admission of your duplicity.

*Actually, I do not expect it. I expect quite the opposite. An open admission of error would be given only by an honest man of integrity.

Quote

 

Please, stop this thread right now. Seriously. Please just stop. This is not the type of thing that ought to be speculated on. Please just let it die. Anything you write will just embarrass you, anyone who reads it, and Latter-day Saints in general.

You know not whereof you speak. You know nothing. Please, do not go this direction. No good can possibly come of such speculation. At absolute best, you will prove yourself ignorant and foolish. That is literally the best possible outcome. More likely, you will erode the foundations of people's testimonies and expose the Saints to shame and ridicule.

Please stop this foolish speculation. It is counterproductive. Please just let it die.

 

You seem traumatized by dissenting opinion.

How does the above qualify as a "hissy fit"?

his·sy

/ˈhisē/

noun

noun: hissy fit

1. an angry outburst or tantrum.

[Vort]

Just now, Klaymen said:

Wow thanks for some honesty.

Ah, the irony.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"fisherman's float"

Personally, I prefer rootbeer floats.  Just sayin'.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Klaymen said:

I wasn't referring to your testimony.  I was referring to the JST.  You were talking about the "lens" through which Christ's words recorded.  The Book of Mormon and the JST came through the "lens" of JS.

And, if I've been interpreting your strategy correctly, the entire motivation of your objections in this thread have been:

Everything came through Joseph Smith.  So, if Joseph Smith can be proven to be a false prophet, then everything else is false.

Yup.  That would indeed be true.  But look at it from the perspective of what we've all been saying:

1) We ask God what HE wants us to do.

2) He tells us to go the path before us regardless of the fallibility of the messenger.

3) We do as he directs.

4) Results continue throughout our lives...

None of what you have brought up here can counter all the myriad of life experience and Spiritual promptings we've had confirming that (as fallible as he was) Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

The Book of Mormon really is the Word of God.

And all this is done that we might come to know that Jesus IS the Christ.  He is our Savior.

How does a false prophet lead people to believe that Jesus is our Savior?  We do not believe Joseph Smith is our savior, any more than Jews believe Moses was their savior.  We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is HE who leads us, not some farmboy from the 1800s.

Nothing you do can shake my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.  And the only reason why that faith is unshakable is because an ignorant, flawed, 14 year old farmboy asked God for some direction in his life.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Klaymen,

I think you've missed the purpose of thirdhour.  If you're interested in hearing why LDS believe what we do, this is the place.  If you're interested in pointing out where we're wrong, you may be happier at mormondialogue.org. 

Site rule #1 (to which you agreed in order to be able to post here:)  

Quote

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

 

 

[pam]

Sorry everyone.  I was a little late to the party.  I got a text message inviting me.  Now if we could get back to the subject that Carb intended when starting this thread.     

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, pam said:

Now if we could get back to the subject that Carb intended when starting this thread.     

Good idea.

Here's the thing.  I was reading Jordan Peterson.  And he quotes this passage as it reads in the KJV.  The interesting thing is that he took it to mean the "rich get richer and poor get poorer" meaning.  But not "completely" the way we'd normally think of it.  The background and explanation comes closer to the JST meaning.

First, he talks about survival of the fittest.  There is always a dominance hierarchy in any species we encounter on this planet.  It's a reality of life.  And humans are no different.  Our underlying biology kinda forces it on us.  And it is only through tremendous energy that we can overcome this biology.  But man is the only creature who can. -- That doesn't mean it's easy.

What we CAN do is make choices now that will change our biology which then changes our psyche.  The example he gives is what I'd like to call "acting as if".  This simply means that even if you're having a hard day and things aren't going your way or if you feel blue... Just stand straight, shoulders back, smile, and act as if you're enjoying life.

What happens then is that your brain and body start to align with the new attitude.  Other creatures can't do this.  They entirely depend on their bodies to tell them how they should react.  We can make a choice to tell our bodies how to react.  Then our bodies obey and create a new reality.

Think of it.  Animals "have".  Humans can "obtain".  If all we do is deal with what we "have", we're no different than animals.  It is only by "obtaining" that we can prove to be human.

Compare that to the predestination/free agency dichotomy. 

Wow, a wealth of gospel parallels.

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was reading Jordan Peterson.

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The example he gives is what I'd like to call "acting as if". 

I've also heard this described as a "metaphorical truth" - that is, the dogma touted as truth may be false (or even provably false(!)) but there is provable value in acting as though it were true. The link has an example, but I think a better one as stated in a Peterson video is the belief "every gun is loaded". The person who behaves like this is always true has a significant advantage over anyone who doesn't.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I've also heard this described as a "metaphorical truth" - that is, the dogma touted as truth may be false (or even provably false(!)) but there is provable value in acting as though it were true. The link has an example, but I think a better one as stated in a Peterson video is the belief "every gun is loaded". The person who behaves like this is always true has a significant advantage over anyone who doesn't.

Gospel parallels abound.

But the "acting as if" is somewhat different than "metaphorical truth".   The former is about how to change reality.  The latter is about an attitude towards rules of living.

Example of acting as if:

If I'm sad and I want to be happy, I start by smiling.  A forced smile will do at first.  But you need to smile as broadly and full eye corners and tooth exposure possible.  When certain muscles in your face are flexed, it causes certain endorphins to generate.  It may take a bit, but they are released and your entire mindset starts to change.

Result: You are happy.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Guest

[mikbone]

I thought this pertinent to the discussion.

 

Joseph Smith on the Parable of the Talents

In April of 1843, the Prophet told Benjamin F. Johnson “that he would preach a sermon that day for me, which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents spoken of by the Savior, ‘unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from that hath not (or will not receive) shall be taken away that which he hath, (or might have had.)’ Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future, to those who were heirs of Salvation” (Andrew F. Ehat, and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1980], 2 April 1843 [2] Note, No. 9., p.269).

[Note in the revelation on Celestial Marriage (D&C 132) there are various phrases taken from the parable of the talents such as in D&C 132:44.]

Original speech given:

What is the meaning of the Parable of the 10 talents? Also conversation with Nicodemus. except a man be born of water & of the spirit.---I shall not tell you?--

Joseph Smith Diary (Willard Richards) 2 April 1843 Ramus, Illinois

[Starwatcher]

On 12/5/2018 at 7:55 PM, Klaymen said:

John 4 says "God is a Spirit" and 1700+ years later Joseph Smith changes it to "God has promised us His Spirit".  Why should we trust him?  I suppose I might need to find other examples.

Klaymen is no longer in the building, as it were, but I thought this particular statement should be addressed.

Actually, John 4:24 does not say "God is a Spirit."  The English translation of John 4:24 says that, yes, but Greek does not have the indefinite article "a".  Thus it could just as well have been rendered by the KJV translators as "God is Spirit."  What does a translator want to say?  If one is translating into English, and one is a Trinitarian, perhaps one might prefer to use the indefinite article "a" to make the doctrinal point of the incorporeality of God.  Interestingly, in his German translation of the Bible, Martin Luther rendered this verse as "Gott ist Geist" ("God is Spirit"), omitting the indefinite article (which German does have) -- thus missing the opportunity to lend more support to the Trinitarian point that God doesn't have a body.

And then we come to the problem of being able to pray to God "in Spirit".  Must we shed our body to pray to Him in truth?  Or does "spirit" mean something more nuanced than incorporeality?  

On 12/5/2018 at 8:01 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

A more interesting question might be, “Why should I trust John 4?”.

This is a good question.  I am reminded of the 8th Article of Faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."  But one might want to enhance the 8th Article of Faith as follows: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is transmitted and translated correctly..."

Take 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine Comma, for example.  

 

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These verses are very nicely supportive of the Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed.  As it turns out, they appear to be interpolations and not part of the original text.  You can translate these two verses as correctly as you like, but are they the "word of God"?  Their transmission is highly suspect and even if you believe the doctrine they imply, they must be excluded from canon, because they are not what flowed from the pen of the original writer.  So, can we trust John 4?

 

On 12/5/2018 at 8:34 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Hi Klaymen,

I think you've missed the purpose of thirdhour.  If you're interested in hearing why LDS believe what we do, this is the place.  If you're interested in pointing out where we're wrong, you may be happier at mormondialogue.org. 

Site rule #1 (to which you agreed in order to be able to post here:)  

I'm on mormondialogue.org (I'm Stargazer there), and he hasn't shown up there yet, so far as I can determine.