Rev. 14:11

[zerinus]

Cut the condescending remarks!

That was my answer to his smug posts, like this one:

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

He either engages in proper, respectful dialogue, or gets the answer he deserves.

[LeSellers]

He either engages in proper, respectful dialogue, or gets the answer he deserves.

I suspect the proper answer is report him, not descend to his level (which, I am sorry to say, I do from time to time myself).

Lehi

[zerinus]

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.

Based on available evidence, the most obvious conclusion is that it was part of John’s Gospel, because that is where the experience on the mount of transfiguration is recorded.

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 is not a reasonable conclusion. The most reasonable conclusion is that the “parchment” refers to the fullness of John’s Gospel. The fact that he had “buried” it (or a copy of it, for safekeeping) himself does not logically lead to the conclusion that it was a different book, or that the early Church had not been in possession of it.

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.

Because we know that the “fullness” of John’s gospel contained material that is not found in the JST, therefore the JST cannot contain that “fullness”. It is to be revealed at a later date.

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.

As I said, Joseph did not translate the “fullness” of that record, for the reasons just explained.

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

I haven’t studied the source of that quote, and it doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The context of D&C 93 makes it clear enough that “record” referred to in that section is the record of John the Revelator, not of John the Baptist.

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.)

See above. I think that the opposite of what you have stated is evident from all that I have said above and in my earlier posts.

Edited December 13, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I suspect the proper answer is report him, not descend to his level (which, I am sorry to say, I do from time to time myself).

Lehi

I don't agree. There is too much mod interference in the discussions in this forum already. They are supposed to be mods, not nannies. We are all adults, not kids. We don't need nannies to keep us on the straight and narrow all the time.

[Hestia]

I suspect the proper answer is report him, not descend to his level (which, I am sorry to say, I do from time to time myself).

That is correct. We had a report on the one, not on the other.

[Freedom]

That was my answer to his smug posts, like this one:

He either engages in proper, respectful dialogue, or gets the answer he deserves.

I could put that back to you. You are insisting that the Book of Revelation is mistranslated or seriously altered but then you provide quotes that seem to say the opposite, or at least do not provide the evidence you think you are providing. If you don't like smug reactions, tone down the smugness yourself. You are making assumptions about Joseph's opinions that are not justified. He says it is the most clear book and you need this comment to be hyperbole to support your theory. The missing revelations that you attribute to the Book of Revelation seem to property belong to the Book of John or some other book that is currently missing from the canon. The book could be grossly lacking, or it could be the least altered of the canon. You say his work of translating was not completed, but you have no evidence that he focused the least amount of time on the Book of Revelation. To me, the evidence suggests that this book is the most accurate. Nevertheless, the evidence is inconclusive.

[Freedom]

That is correct. We had a report on the one, not on the other.

Well, sorry if I was rude. I wasn't offended by his comment, I was rather flattered. I just wish he would use more qualifiers in his language rather than telling us that the case is closed.

[Freedom]

I don't agree. There is too much mod interference in the discussions in this forum already. They are supposed to be mods, not nannies. We are all adults, not kids. We don't need nannies to keep us on the straight and narrow all the time.

Besides, what's a little name calling among friends.

[inquiringmind]

Based on available evidence, the most obvious conclusion is that it was part of John’s Gospel, because that is where the experience on the mount of transfiguration is recorded.

The experience on the mount of transfiguration isn't recorded in John's Gospel at all (perhaps because it was already recorded in the synoptics.)

John wrote his Gospel after the others, and he apparently tried not to be redundant.

Which may be why he wrote:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25.

That is not a reasonable conclusion. The most reasonable conclusion is that the “parchment” refers to the fullness of John’s Gospel

Why?

Because we know that the “fullness” of John’s gospel contained material that is not found in the JST

How do we know that?

I haven’t studied the source of that quote, and it doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The context of D&C 93 makes it clear enough that “record” referred to in that section is the record of John the Revelator, not of John the Baptist.

How, exactly, does the context of D&C 93 make that clear?

It seemed clear to Neal A. Maxwell that it was speaking of a record "kept by John the Baptist...not to be confused with the writings of John the Revelator, the Apostle, found in the New Testament."

Edited December 14, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Ron Beron]

So what is the mark of the beast?

The "mark of the beast" is ostensibly a seal of some kind that relates to a gematria (a cryptograph in the form of a word whose letters have the numerical values of a word taken as the hidden meaning Websters Dictionary) of a persons name. A number of very early manuscripts whose authorship can be traced to Irenaeus shows the Mark as 616 and not 666. The gematria of 616 relates not to a future beast, but to a contemporary of the 1st century, i.e., Neron or Nero. As has been previously mentioned by Robert Smith it is a false counterpart to the name of God worn by the Lord's chosen. Those who have the number, i.e., the gematria of Nero also follow him in the persecution of the saints. Some have argued that the chaotic scenes found in the war between the beast/dragon/serpent is representative of the war of God against chaos in the early chapters of Genesis. If so, it would somewhat appropriate that the evil fought within the beginning of time is also represented as the endgame at the end of time.

[zerinus]

The experience on the mount of transfiguration isn't recorded in John's Gospel at all (perhaps because it was already recorded in the synoptics.)

John wrote his Gospel after the others, and he apparently tried not to be redundant.

Which may be why he wrote:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25.

There are some additional verses that you missed, that tell us more about the Gospel of John we have today:

John 19:

35 And he that saw it [i.e. John] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

John 21:

24 This is the disciple [i.e. John] which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

What that tells us is that the Gospel of John as we have it today was not written by John at all, but is an abridgement of the record of John made by somebody else. The original record was a lot bigger, and had more material in it. (All of the four Gospels in fact are abridgements of much larger records, the originals of which have not survived. The JST was never an attempt to restore all of those lost records.) And just as the events relating to the Mount of Transfiguration is part of the narratives of the synoptic Gospels, the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the stated sources is that John’s description of the Mount of Transfiguration was also part of his original Gospel, the fullness of which we have not yet received (but we will in the future).

Why?

How do we know that?

Bad questions; already answered. D&C 7 is part of John’s Gospel, not found in the JST. Likewise the description of the Mount of Transfiguration, and the expansion of his Gospel found in D&C 93.

How, exactly, does the context of D&C 93 make that clear?

Here is what we have in the Gospel of John:

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

And here is what is given in the D&C 93:

D&C 93:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest.

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.

7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

To me it is obvious that D&C 93 is an expanded version of what is in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Now it is true that in that narrative mention is made of the testimony of John the Baptist; but I think the context makes it clear that the bulk of what is contained in the that narrative is the testimony of John the Beloved, not of John the Baptist.

It seemed clear to Neal A. Maxwell that it was speaking of a record "kept by John the Baptist...not to be confused with the writings of John the Revelator, the Apostle, found in the New Testament."

I have not found such a statement by Elder Maxwell. “Not my will be done” appears to be a piece of illustration (by a non-member), and is not the title of an article by Elder Maxwell. I have found no authoritative source or revelatory claims for that suggestion. I found statements made by Bruce R. McConkie and Jonn D. Claybaugh which are speculative and not by any means conclusive or binding on the Church. Jonn D. Claybaugh’s statement is as follows:

D&C 93:6–18, 26 . Section 93 contributes significantly to our understanding of the writings of John. When the Lord said in verse 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,” He left open the question of whether He spoke of John the Baptist or John the Beloved. The index of the LDS triple combination contains entries for John the Baptist and John the Beloved, both of which send the reader to section 93, which is probably best, for perhaps the most satisfying conclusion is that both Johns are involved. In other words, it is likely that the John who “saw and bore record” is John the Baptist. John the Beloved probably either copied from John the Baptist’s own written record or originally recorded it in his Gospel. The record which the Lord says “is hereafter to be revealed” may be that of either or both of these faithful servants. This pattern is similar to the first chapter of the Gospel of John, wherein the writer, John the Beloved, is quoting the speaker, John the Baptist, and both are testifying of Christ. Source.

That is a very inconclusive comment, and is just expressing his personal opinion and his way of reading that text. I am inclined to read it differently. While it is true that John the Beloved is mentioning John the Baptist’s testimony, there is nothing in the narrative to force us to believe that all of that testimony belonged to John the Baptist rather than to John the Beloved. The context implies otherwise.

Edited December 14, 2011 by zerinus

[boblloyd91]

The "mark of the beast" is ostensibly a seal of some kind that relates to a gematria (a cryptograph in the form of a word whose letters have the numerical values of a word taken as the hidden meaning Websters Dictionary) of a persons name. A number of very early manuscripts whose authorship can be traced to Irenaeus shows the Mark as 616 and not 666. The gematria of 616 relates not to a future beast, but to a contemporary of the 1st century, i.e., Neron or Nero

I of course don't claim to be a biblical scholar, but this is something that I have heard about as well. Very intriguing!

[inquiringmind]

Thank you, but none of the replies here really address my question.

The Evangelical view seems to be that in the final years of the last generation, everyone will either be a willing Evangelical martyr, or they'll receive the mark of the beast and be lost forever (whether that mark is literal or not.)

Is that the LDS view?

Is a time coming when everyone living on earth will either be LDS, or a son perdition?

Is that what Rev. 14:11 means?

Am I wrong, or does the following (apparently from an LDS sight) seem to suggest another interpretation?

“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

Whatever "Babylon" is, and whatever "the mark" is, are those who aren't ready at the second coming (who received the mark rather than die as martyrs, and suffered their "first death" when Babylon was destroyed) doomed to eternal torment (or is "the smoke of their torment" something distinct from the torment itself)?

Edited December 27, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Ron Beron]

Thank you, but none of the replies here really address my question.

The Evangelical view seems to be that in the final years of the last generation, everyone will either be a willing Evangelical martyr, or they'll receive the mark of the beast and be lost forever (whether that mark is literal or not.)

Is that the LDS view?

Is a time coming when everyone living on earth will either be LDS, or a son perdition?

Is that what Rev. 14:11 means?

Am I wrong, or does the following (apparently from an LDS sight) seem to suggest another interpretation?

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

Whatever "Babylon" is, and whatever "the mark" is, are those who aren't ready at the second coming (who received the mark rather than die as martyrs, and suffered their "first death" when Babylon was destroyed) doomed to eternal torment (or is "the smoke of their torment" something distinct from the torment itself)?

Upon those narrow restrictions I found only a comment by Bruce R. McConkie....

"And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the <a class="search_hit" href="http://gospelink.com/library/document/14343?highlight=1#m_5">beast, and upon them which worshipped his image." Could this be the same plague of which Zechariah speaks when he says that men's "flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth"? (Zech. 14:12.) Does it have reference to these words of latter-day revelation: "And their flesh shall fall from off their bones, and their eyes from their sockets"? (D&C 29:19.) Is this a plague that will result from atomic fallout? Or from some worldwide pollution of the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink? It is to come upon those who worship at the altars of evil, leaving the inference that those only will escape who have faith in the Lord and who exercise the power of the priesthood to rebuke the evils that otherwise would afflict them

in Bruce R. McConkie, Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man

[zerinus]

I think that your question was already answered by me in the following quote from post #4:

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.

And in the following quotes from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that I gave in post #21:

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; (Teachings, p 287.)

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. (Teachings, pp 290–91.)

Edited December 27, 2011 by zerinus

[followerofemmanuel]

It is in The Books of Mormon

The last book of the New Testament

[LeSellers]

[Revelations is t]he last book of the New Testament

Sorry, Revelations is not the last book in the New Testament. That's Revelation.

Lehi