Rev. 14:11

[inquiringmind]

I was reading this passage recently.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Rev. 14:9-11.)

Looking for an LDS interpretation, I found this.

“The smoke of the destruction of Babylon (see 18:9, 18) will rise up to the heavens forever as a testimony of her wickedness. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Abraham ‘looked . . . toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace’ (Gen. 19:28). When Isaiah made his prophecy against Idumea (which represents the world; see D&C 1:36), he saw that ‘the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste’ (Isa. 34:9-10; Rev. 14:11). As the smoke of incense rises up to God as a prayer (8:3-4), so will the smoke of the destroyed Babylon rise up as a reminder of the sin and just destruction of the wicked world.” (Donald W. Parry and Jay A. Parry, Understanding the Book of Revelation [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 250.)

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/Rev19.htm

So what is the mark of the beast?

Are all who receive it "sons of perdition"?

Is it a computer chip implant, or the carnal nature?

How do LDS view this?

[blackstrap]

Reminds me of the photos of the oilfield fires in Kuwait.Apocaplyptic if anything is.

[BCSpace]

Is it a computer chip implant, or the carnal nature?

Sure. It's a bow tie or an Apple computer or other "i" product.

[zerinus]

I was reading this passage recently.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Rev. 14:9-11.)

Looking for an LDS interpretation, I found this.

http://www.gospeldoc...ament/Rev19.htm

So what is the mark of the beast?

Are all who receive it "sons of perdition"?

Is it a computer chip implant, or the carnal nature?

How do LDS view this?

The Mormon view on this is that the book of Revelation of John as we have it today is not the same as it was penned by its original author, but many “plain and precious parts” have been removed from it. Originally it was a plain and easy book to understand, according to the Book of Mormon; but as a result of the removal of those “plain and precious parts,” it has become a very difficult book to understand:

1 Nephi:

18 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

19 And I looked and beheld a man, and he was dressed in a white robe.

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel.

The Church has never put out an “official” interpretation of the Revelation of John (apart from what is revealed in D&C 77). The only way to know the answer to the questions you are asking is by means of a new revelation, which the Church does not claim to have received (or published). Anyone’s purported interpretation is just that, their own opinions. You are free to read them and make up your own mind about them, as other Church members are. Other Church members whom you are asking these questions from are in no better position to answer them than you are. Your best bet is to study the standard works thoughtfully and prayerfully, and ask the Lord to reveal to you through them by His Spirit the mysteries they contain; and according to your diligence and faithfulness, you will have your questions answered, according to how much God is willing to reveal to you at the time. Other than that you are wasting your time asking other LDS these kinds of questions.

[Freedom]

We mark our selves in different ways today. The mark of the beast is the number 666 where the mark of God is 777. It has been argued that the mark of the beast is the appearance of godliness but lacking the power there of. It was cultural back in the day to mark yourself on your forehead or in other places with the god you worshiped or with your cultural ties. Today it is difficult to distinguish between a worthy temple goer and a purely evil person based on their attire, but we do mark ourselves in other ways. I believe this prophesy is tied to the parable of the 10 virgins. Although we do not have the interpretations of the book of Revelations, I would think that the intention of the visions would not be in conflict with other scriptures.

[ksfisher]

When writing about the mark of the beast, John probably had something specific in mind. However, the context in which he was writing is not very well understood today. It can best be understood as the opposite of having the name of Christ written on your forehead. That is, following and worshipping the things of this world rather than the Savior. So calling it a carnal nature is probably not to far off.

I believe that the Book of Revelations has shown a remarkable degree of preservation from the earliest manuscripts. When Nephi is writing about the plain and precious parts of the gospel being taken out of the book I believe he is referring to the prophecies about the Messiah being taken out of the Old Testament (or what we call the Old Testament today) by the Jews after the death of Christ.

[inquiringmind]

I believe that the Book of Revelations has shown a remarkable degree of preservation from the earliest manuscripts. When Nephi is writing about the plain and precious parts of the gospel being taken out of the book I believe he is referring to the prophecies about the Messiah being taken out of the Old Testament (or what we call the Old Testament today) by the Jews after the death of Christ.

Yes.

I was just reading the JST translation, and it doesn't seem to indicate that anything was changed or removed from the Book of Revelation.

When writing about the mark of the beast, John probably had something specific in mind. However, the context in which he was writing is not very well understood today. It can best be understood as the opposite of having the name of Christ written on your forehead. That is, following and worshipping the things of this world rather than the Savior. So calling it a carnal nature is probably not to far off.

So are all who have this carnal nature sons of perdition?

I'm still thinking of this quote from Donald and Jay Parry.

“The smoke of the destruction of Babylon (see 18:9, 18) will rise up to the heavens forever as a testimony of her wickedness. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Abraham ‘looked . . . toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace’ (Gen. 19:28). When Isaiah made his prophecy against Idumea (which represents the world; see D&C 1:36), he saw that ‘the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste’ (Isa. 34:9-10; Rev. 14:11). As the smoke of incense rises up to God as a prayer (8:3-4), so will the smoke of the destroyed Babylon rise up as a reminder of the sin and just destruction of the wicked world.” (Donald W. Parry and Jay A. Parry, Understanding the Book of Revelation [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 250.)

http://www.gospeldoc...ament/Rev19.htm

It says the smoke of Babylon's destruction will rise up forever as a testimony of it's wickedness, but what about the people?

Will they all suffer forever?

Edited December 12, 2011 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

When writing about the mark of the beast, John probably had something specific in mind. However, the context in which he was writing is not very well understood today. It can best be understood as the opposite of having the name of Christ written on your forehead. That is, following and worshipping the things of this world rather than the Savior. So calling it a carnal nature is probably not to far off.

I believe that the Book of Revelations has shown a remarkable degree of preservation from the earliest manuscripts. When Nephi is writing about the plain and precious parts of the gospel being taken out of the book I believe he is referring to the prophecies about the Messiah being taken out of the Old Testament (or what we call the Old Testament today) by the Jews after the death of Christ.

Your understanding is very much out of sync with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the (deliberate) removal of the “plain and precious parts” took place primarily in the New Testament canon, not the OT:

1 Nephi 13:

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

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 were taken 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.

These all point to the NT, not OT. The OT existed before the "twelve apostles" were called, and it did not go to the Gentiles "by the hand of the twelve apostles of the lamb". The Gentiles discovered the OT long before the Twelve Apostles came along. And most of the "stumbling" of the Christian (Gentile) nations have been caused by their misinterpretation of the NT, not the OT. By contrast, the Old Testament is actually very well preserved. What has happened in the OT is that whole books have gone missing from it; but the books that we actually have are very well preserved. The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible also backs that up. In the JST the most extensive changes were made in the NT; whereas in the OT text very few changes have been made. A quick look at the footnotes to the LDS edition of the Bible will demonstrate this.

[zerinus]

Yes.

I was just reading the JST translation, and it doesn't seem to indicate that anything was changed or removed from the Book of Revelation.

Joseph Smith did not complete the JST, and it does not represent a complete restoration of the missing scriptures therein. A complete restoration would have entailed revealing many mysteries which the Lord did not want to be revealed at that time.

[Freedom]

Yes.

I was just reading the JST translation, and it doesn't seem to indicate that anything was changed or removed from the Book of Revelation.

I believe you are right about theBook of revelations. I would have to find the Quote but I believe that joseph Smith was of the opinion that the Book of Revelations was largely intact because later dogmatists understood it so poorly they did not have cause to change it to fit their doctrine.

[ksfisher]

I believe you are right about theBook of revelations. I would have to find the Quote but I believe that joseph Smith was of the opinion that the Book of Revelations was largely intact because later dogmatists understood it so poorly they did not have cause to change it to fit their doctrine.

The same thing is in the back of my mind as well. I'm at work so I'm not able to run it down at the moment.

The problems we have with Revelations are not that parts are missing, but that the symbolism that John uses is so far removed from our world.

It is true that the gospel, or rather people understanding of the gospel, underwent changes in the years after Christ died. One of the main things that changed in the written records was the Jews removal of references in their scriptures to an Atoning Messiah. The prophets of the Book of Mormon, taught in the traditions of the brass plates, clearly understood Christ's mission as being on of atonement. The Old Testament taught this principle much more plainly before the death of Christ. Many of these passages were either removed or altered by the Jews in their attempts to discredit the Christian church.

[LeSellers]

I believe you are right about theBook of revelations. I would have to find the Quote but I believe that joseph Smith was of the opinion that the Book of Revelations was largely intact because later dogmatists understood it so poorly they did not have cause to change it to fit their doctrine.

I have carefully searched in my Bible and have not found a book called "Revelations". Where is it?

Lehi

[Robert F. Smith]

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Rev. 14:9-11.)

Are all who receive it "sons of perdition"?

Is it a computer chip implant, or the carnal nature?

How do LDS view this?

The mark of the beast is simply the opposite and counterpart to the mark on the forehead and right hand of the 144,000 high priests of God, that mark presumably being the name of YHWH (qodesh laYahweh "Holy to Yahweh," as on my personal icon in blue which accompanies my posts) in gold on the front of the mitre or turban worn by the HP (Ex 28:36-38, Rev 7:3, 20:4, 22:4), just as Christ himself will come with the following written on his robe (vesture) and thigh: "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords" (Rev 19:16). The words or "mark" of the godly can also be seen on all LDS temples: "Holiness to the Lord."

Those who are consigned to Perdition (the Second Death) must sin against light & knowledge, i.e., against the Holy Ghost (D&C 76:31-38,44-49).

[Robert F. Smith]

I have carefully searched in my Bible and have not found a book called "Revelations". Where is it?

Lehi

C'mon, Lehi, be nice.

[Freedom]

I have carefully searched in my Bible and have not found a book called "Revelations". Where is it?

Lehi

It is in The Books of Mormon

[zerinus]

I believe you are right about theBook of revelations.

Then you have to find an alternative explanation for this verse:

1 Nephi:

22 And he [John] shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he [John] shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

These dire warnings are also indicative that something like it were expected to happen:

Revelation 22:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I would have to find the Quote but I believe that joseph Smith was of the opinion that the Book of Revelations was largely intact because later dogmatists understood it so poorly they did not have cause to change it to fit their doctrine.

I am not aware of such a statement by Joseph Smith. I would be interested to see it as well.

Edited December 13, 2011 by zerinus

[Freedom]

Then you have to find an alternative explanation for this verse:

That verse could apply to the bible collectively and not to the book of revelation specifically. Nevertheless, not having ever seen the original mannuscript written by John, all we can base our assumptions on is the changes Joseph Smith put forward. There is an argument that he did not complete is revisions of This last book, however his edits did span the entire book and there were far fewer in the Book of Revelation than any other book. at least that is how I understand it. The bottom line is we just don't know. He did state that "The book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written"

[zerinus]

That verse could apply to the bible collectively and not to the book of revelation specifically.

The verse implies the New Testament generally, and the Revelation of John specifically.

Nevertheless, not having ever seen the original mannuscript written by John, all we can base our assumptions on is the changes Joseph Smith put forward. There is an argument that he did not complete is revisions of This last book, however his edits did span the entire book and there were far fewer in the Book of Revelation than any other book. at least that is how I understand it.

There are enough indications to enable us to know that translation was not complete, or that it did not include all that could have been revealed. For example, in D&C 63 we read the following:

20 Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come;

21 When the earth shall be transfigured, even according to the pattern which was shown unto mine apostles upon the mount; of which account the fulness ye have not yet received.

22 And now, verily I say unto you, that as I said that I would make known my will unto you, behold I will make it known unto you, not by the way of commandment, for there are many who observe not to keep my commandments.

23 But unto him that keepeth my commandments I will give the mysteries of my kingdom, and the same shall be in him a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life.

Which tells us of an important information in the Gospel of John, which is not disclosed in the JST. Another example is D&C 7, which is a revealed translation of a portion of John’s Gospel, which is not found in the JST. These and other examples that could be cited indicate that the JST was not complete, and was not even meant at that time to be complete. God did not intend to disclose at that time all the myseries that could be revealed if the fullness of those missing records were translated. He only disclosed as much as the world (and the Church) was able and willing to receive at that time. The rest should be revealed at a later date.

The bottom line is we just don't know.

We have some good clues, as shown above.

He did state that "The book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written"

A careful reading of what he said, will make clear that he did not mean to say what you think he said. He was using a bit of hyperbole, and what he actually meant was that John literally saw those strange figures and beasts that he described in his vision, because such strange creatures actually exist in heaven. In other words, they were not just figurative expressions. He literally saw what he described. That is what he meant to say.

[Freedom]

A careful reading of what he said, will make clear that he did not mean to say what you think he said. He was using a bit of hyperbole, and what he actually meant was that John literally saw those strange figures and beasts that he described in his vision, because such strange creatures actually exist in heaven. In other words, they were not just figurative expressions. He literally saw what he described. That is what he meant to say.

It is good to know that someone can read his mind for us.

[mfbukowski]

I was reading this passage recently.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Rev. 14:9-11.)

Looking for an LDS interpretation, I found this.

http://www.gospeldoc...ament/Rev19.htm

So what is the mark of the beast?

Are all who receive it "sons of perdition"?

Is it a computer chip implant, or the carnal nature?

How do LDS view this?

Nobody knows. That should be clear by now.

[zerinus]

It is good to know that someone can read his mind for us.

You don’t need to “read his mind,” when he has already told you what is in his mind. Here are the relevant extracts from his sermon:

The subject I intend to speak upon this morning is one that I have seldom touched upon since I commenced my ministry in the Church. It is a subject of great speculation, as well amongst the elders of this Church, as among the divines of the day: it is in relation to the beasts spoken of by John the Revelator. I have seldom spoken from the Revelations; but as my subject is a constant source of speculation amongst the elders, causing a division of sentiment and opinion in relation to it, I now do it in order that division and differences of opinion may be done away with, and not that correct knowledge on the subject is so much needed at the present time.

It is not very essential for the elders to have knowledge in relation to the meaning of beasts, and heads and horns, and other figures made use of in the revelations; still, it may be necessary, to prevent contention and division and do away with suspense. If we get puffed up by thinking that we have much knowledge, we are apt to get a contentious spirit, and correct knowledge is necessary to cast out that spirit. (Teachings, p 287.)

* * *

Now, I make this declaration, that those things which John saw in heaven had no allusion to anything that had been on the earth previous to that time, because they were the representation of “things which must shortly come to pass,” and not of what has already transpired. John saw beasts that had to do with things on the earth, but not in past ages. The beasts which John saw had to devour the inhabitants of the earth in days to come. “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and beheld a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another; and there was given unto him a great sword.” (Rev. 6:1, 2, 3, 4.) The book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written.

The Revelations do not give us to understand anything of the past in relation to the kingdom of God. What John saw and speaks of were things which he saw in heaven; those which Daniel saw were on and pertaining to the earth.

I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible in relation to these matters. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the [OT] prophets and the present translation. The [OT] prophets do not declare that they saw a beast or beasts, but that they saw the image or figure of a beast. Daniel did not see an actual bear or a lion, but the images or figures of those beasts. The translation should have been rendered “image” instead of “beast,” in every instance where beasts are mentioned by the [OT] prophets. But John saw the actual beast in heaven, showing to John that beasts did actually exist there, and not to represent figures of things on the earth. When the [OT] prophets speak of seeing beasts in their visions, they mean that they saw the images, they being types to represent certain things. At the same time they received the interpretation as to what those images or types were designed to represent.

I make this broad declaration, that whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure of any kind, He always holds Himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning thereof, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. Don’t be afraid of being damned for not knowing the meaning of a vision or figure, if God has not given a revelation or interpretation of the subject.

John saw curious looking beasts in heaven; he saw every creature that was in heaven,—all the beasts, fowls and fish in heaven,—actually there, giving glory to God. How do you prove it? (See Rev. 5:13.) “And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” (Teachings, pp 290–91.)

Do you get the idea now sunshine? Joseph didn’t mean to convey the idea that the book of Revelation as we have it today contains no omissions. What he meant was that John described in plain language the objects that physically exist, and which he literally saw in heaven, unlike the visions of the OT prophets (like Daniel), who only saw figurative representations or images, but not actual literal objects existing in heaven.

Edited December 13, 2011 by zerinus

[inquiringmind]

There are enough indications to enable us to know that translation was not complete, or that it did not include all that could have been revealed. For example, in D&C 63 we read the following:

20 Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come;

21 When the earth shall be transfigured, even according to the pattern which was shown unto mine apostles upon the mount; of which account the fulness ye have not yet received.

22 And now, verily I say unto you, that as I said that I would make known my will unto you, behold I will make it known unto you, not by the way of commandment, for there are many who observe not to keep my commandments.

23 But unto him that keepeth my commandments I will give the mysteries of my kingdom, and the same shall be in him a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life.

Which tells us of an important information in the Gospel of John, which is not disclosed in the JST. Another example is D&C 7, which is a revealed translation of a portion of John’s Gospel, which is not found in the JST.

Actually, nothing in D&C 63 says that everything the disciples saw on the mount was once fully recorded in the Gospels, and then removed.

It seems to say that it wasn't recorded.

And the introduction to D&C 7 says that the revelation is the translation of a parchment hidden up by John himself (it doesn't say that it was ever part of his Gospel.)

Also, there seem to be indications that Joseph finished the work of translation.

"Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again; And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished" (Doctrine and Covenants, 73:3-4).

Smith began to labor on the new translation and wrote that he had completed the work: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of July, 1833, and sealed it up; no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324). In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

Also, I was personally told (by missionaries) that the only reason the LDS Church doesn't publish the JST is because the RLDS owns the copyright (not because it's incomplete.)

Edited December 13, 2011 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

Actually, nothing in D&C 63 says that everything the disciples saw on the mount was once fully recorded in the Gospels, and then removed.

It seems to say that it wasn't recorded.

And the introduction to D&C 7 says that the revelation is the translation of a parchment hidden up by John himself (it doesn't say that it was ever part of his Gospel.)

Whether it was part of the Gospel of John, or a separate book, is beside the point. In either case, it is part of the New Testament canon which at some stage is to be revealed, but has not been revealed in the JST---just as there are many missing books of the OT, which are not restored or revealed in the JST.

Also, there seem to be indications that Joseph finished the work of translation.

"Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again; And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished" (Doctrine and Covenants, 73:3-4).

Smith began to labor on the new translation and wrote that he had completed the work: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of July, 1833, and sealed it up; no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324). In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

He did finish it in the sense that it contained all the missing bits that God wanted to be restored at that time. But there were many more that God did not want to be revealed at that time, but has promised to be restored at a later date, including the fullness of John's Gospel, as attested in this verse:

D&C 93:

6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John's record is hereafter to be revealed.

Edited December 13, 2011 by zerinus

[inquiringmind]

Whether it was part of the Gospel of John, or a separate book, is beside the point. In either case, is is part of the New Testament canon which at some stage is to be revealed, but has not been revealed in the JST

But it is the point.

If it wasn't part of the Gospel of John, and Joseph Smith was inspired to translate that Gospel, we have the same "Gospel of John" that the early Church had (in the Joseph Smith Translation), regardless of any hidden parchments that were never part of that Gospel.

If the parchment translated in D&C 7 was "hidden up" by John himself, the early Church probably never had it (so we have something extra--but it was never part of the Gospel of John.)

That's the point.

He did finish it in the sense that it contained all the missing bits that God wanted to be restored at that time. But there were many more that God did not want to be revealed at that time, but has promised to be restored at a later date, including the fullness of John's Gospel, as attested in this verse:

D&C 93:

6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John's record is hereafter to be revealed.

There's nothing in that verse that attests to the fulness of "John's Gospel" being restored at a later date, unless you're assuming that John only "bore record" in the Gospel that bears his name.

Also, D&C 93 is dated May 1833.

Joseph said he finished his translation of the Bible in July 1833.

So even if "the fulness of John's record" refers to his Gospel, this was before Joseph ("at a later date") finished his translation.

Also,

The record of John referred to in Doctrine and Covenants 93 is a record kept by John the Baptist. The full record of John the Baptist is yet to be revealed, but it will come forth in the future. This record is not to be confused with the writings of John the Revelator, the Apostle, found in the New Testament. (See NealA. Maxwell, “Not My Will, But Thine” [1988], p.44.)

http://seminary.lds....ssg-4-dc-93.asp

You have not provided any evidence that anything was removed from the Book of Revelation, was restored to this book, or is waiting to be restored to it (or that there are bits and pieces missing from Joseph's translation of the Gospel of John.)

Edited December 13, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Hestia]

Do you get the idea now sunshine?

Cut the condescending remarks!