Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast. In this podcast, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat and Professor Richard LeDuc explore the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the life and teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith. They examine the original historical sources and provide context for events of the past. They approach the history of the Church with faith, expertise and humor.

Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.

Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's episode, we're gonna talk about the Sermon on the Mount, and Joseph's thoughts and comments on that. But before we do, we have a couple of emails that we're gonna get to. This comes to us, he gave us our name, he gave us his name, but we're going to just say anonymous, just to provide an additional layer of protection.

Gerrit Should we give like a letter that his first name starts with? So like Richard?

Richard Like Richard, yeah.

Gerrit Did you send this email?

Richard Like Richard, yeah.

Gerrit Did you send this email?

Richard I sent this email. Dear Dr. Dirkmaat and Professor LeDuc, why don't you talk more about Richard's research and what he's doing at the University of Utah?

Gerrit It seems like, yeah, are you sure you didn't write this?

Richard Yeah, no, all right, here we go. Dr. Dirkmaat and Professor LeDuc, I've been a listener from the beginning. I was captivated from the first episode where you shared a story where you were a visitor in the audience of a Fast and Testimony meeting and got the meeting back on track after antis tried to take it over. Then ward members at Sunday School thought that you might have been one of the three Nephites. Fellow Idahoan, church history lover, sports fan, Jewish concert, sadly never been abducted, never had an abducted Bar Mitzvah. You should, by the way.

Gerrit You know, that's pretty awesome.

Richard It is. Mitzvah tank, I was Bar Mitzvahed in a Mitzvah tank on Sixth Avenue in New York.

Gerrit We got to see it, I got to see it when I went to New York. I saw it and I thought, where's Richard?

Richard I became a man, I was 38 years old. And board game enthusiast, I recommend your podcast to everyone. It makes me feel like I'm fulfilling my calling as a board missionary. I wish I had a great question to get you guys on a nice off topic journey. That is always the most hilarious part of the listening adventure. I think he means it. Listening today, I did think of two funny comments to contribute. I served my mission in South America, where water is not always very dependable. Our zone had multiple families lined up for baptism. Gerrit and I are not familiar with that, by the way.

Gerrit Yeah, what is this all? When you say baptism, what is this?

Richard What do you mean by families?

Gerrit What do you mean by faith? What's going on? What do you mean by conversion?

Richard About halfway through filling up the font, the water went out. And so to avoid making the individuals lay prostrate in the font, we just had the whole zone of elders, some in slacks and ties come in and sit in the font to displace the water and make the water level higher, work like a charm.

Gerrit That is the greatest missionary story ever.

Richard That is really great. So that was possibly in response to the tragic drowning baptism podcast. No, I'm sure it was. To one up the mother in New York who makes her children listen in the car, I work in law enforcement. And I often have your podcast playing when I have arrested individual in the back of my patrol car. I even had two of these individuals ask questions about the podcast.

Gerrit Oh, that's why our downloads went up by two this week.

Richard So we ran through the list of prisons that were huge and fulsome, obviously. California Department of State Hospitals, Atascadero, Leavenworth, Rikers Island. And then Angie said we're big in Guantanamo Bay.

Gerrit And the Chateau d'Oufe.

Richard So that's very funny. Love that there are some premium content. I'll be signing up for sure. First podcast I've ever considered paying for content behind a paywall. Thank you for the lighthearted, hilarious, but informative and brilliant podcasts. You keep me laughing the whole time. And then close your episodes with powerful testimony of the gospel, the Savior, and the prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith. Thank you very much, R.

Gerrit Well, thank you. First of all, thank you for driving our listenership literally with a captive audience. I mean, we thought a captive audience was someone's child being in the car. This is a different kind. This is a captive audience that's literally in handcuffs.

Richard I just, I love that so much that I wonder what's worse for them, being processed through county or having to listen to the podcast.

Gerrit Well, I mean, I'm sure that the various searches and prison garb is slightly better than listening to the podcast. Just slightly better.

Richard Oh man, such a funny, such a funny. Well, so by the way, if you have been arrested and you're sitting in the back of a squad car right now, just want you to know.

Gerrit Shout out to you. Yeah, shout out to you. We don't know your name, but you know what? God does.

Richard Yeah, and he loves you. And you know, there's repentance.

Gerrit You can change.

Richard Yeah, you bet.

Gerrit You can change.

Richard Yeah, you bet.

Gerrit We have all kinds of people that were arrested in Latter-day Saint history.

Richard Yeah, I'm sure that these are also-

Gerrit Some of it even accurately.

Richard All right, so another podcast here. Hello Dr. Dirkmaat only, which is very funny.

Gerrit I think this is a direct response to the fact that last week someone got on the air by kowtowing to Richard by simply writing an email that was to Richard only, not to Gerrit, only to Richard. And then the question was, Richard, can you ask Gerrit? So I think this person is responding to that.

Richard Yeah, it's very well done, Aaron. My name is Aaron. I live in Tooele, Utah. I like to listen to your podcast and have found that it helped me understand aspects of church leaders that strengthens my testimony of them, showing how human they are. I came upon your podcast after hearing you speak on the Follow Him podcast with Hank Smith and John By The Way. I said his name in a sentence rather than just saying John By The Way, I said John By The Way.

Gerrit Yeah, it was very, you made it sound like you were about to add something else.

Richard I was. I've loved it, but I've never quite figured out what Richard contributes. So now, so when we-

Gerrit Coming in hot.

Richard Yeah, yeah, thanks, Aaron. So when we read this, Gerrit's like, oh, geez. And I was like, yeah. But then we thought about it.

Gerrit So we were gonna make a list of what Richard contributes.

Richard And you know what, Aaron? You got a pretty good point.

Gerrit There's a longer list of prison systems where we have active listeners.

Richard Than what I actually contribute. Anyway, yeah, so I was offended. And then I was like, you know what? That's a little on the nose. Aaron, you're right. Anyway, I've had a question that I've never really understood. I came upon it on my mission and never heard anyone speak about it. So I was wondering if you could answer it. In 3 Nephi chapter 13 verse 12, we get part of the Lord's Prayer as read in Matthew, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. And in Matthew 6 verse 13, it reads the same, but the Joseph Smith Translation changes it to read and suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil. And I guess my question is, why doesn't it read the same in the Book of Mormon? I've rationalized in my head that maybe that's just how Joseph Smith understood it at the time. And when he learned more from doing the Joseph Smith Translation, he's able to pick up on the change. I've never asked this question before and it's not a stumbling block for my faith. I've never brought it up to anyone though.

Richard So I'm just wondering if you would ever have an answer for it.

Gerrit So this is a secret question. He's never asked anyone about it. That we are now broadcasting to the tens of tens of incarcerated prisoners in the back of squad cars.

Richard Thanks Dr. Dirkmaat. And you can thank Richard too, if you want. He doesn't. He doesn't want to and he won't.

Gerrit I'm going to thank Richard right now. Thank you Richard for reading an email that was so patently anti-Richard. Aaron, your pro-Gerrit anti-Richard agenda has been clear for some time.

Richard Some time. Well, so this actually is something, and this very likely is a sincere question by Aaron, but this is actually something that- They're calling it the question of sincerity? Well, you know what? You come at me, I'm coming back at you. No, no, I'm not saying that Aaron's question isn't sincere. I am saying that this is also a question that is asked by antagonists of the church to say, well, if this was right, then why did this change? So I'm not questioning Aaron's sincerity. I'm saying this is also something that is a little bit more of a common question.

Gerrit You're not questioning Aaron's sincerity, but you're pretty sure he was in the back of one of our squad cars.

Richard Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

Gerrit And it really is a good question. Let's lead off there because that, we just studied the Sermon on the Mount, which I'm guessing that's the reason why the question came up for him. And I really think that this is a common antagonistic point, not just here, but with the Isaiah chapters, whenever there's a change that's made in the Joseph Smith Translation that isn't reflected in what is similar in the Book of Mormon, then someone's going to say, well, if this is really coming from God, then how come it's not in the Book of Mormon? Why is it not later? Or you'll find that things that Joseph doesn't change in the Joseph Smith Translation, but are slightly different in the Book of Mormon, why didn't he change it in both places? So it is a pretty common antagonistic question. And frankly, it's one of those antagonistic questions that stems from a cultural belief that Latter-day Saints are constantly pressured by and reacting to without even realizing that they're doing it.

Gerrit And that is the most fundamental aspects of Protestant culture, the aspects of Protestant Reformation that are infused, let's say, into every aspect of American culture, even non-religious American culture are these. First, that salvation is only by faith. It's by faith alone. However many other things you want to do, salvation only comes by faith. Well, that doesn't affect our question here too terribly much. But the second point, that all truth is only in the Bible. And of course, that can be taken to the point of the Bible being the inerrant word of God. Now, there are many Protestants who don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but they do believe that it's the only word of God.

Richard And certainly the final word.

Gerrit It's the final word of God. That is something that is the way that Christian culture in the United States views scripture. The way Christian culture views scripture is as something that literally cannot be changed. That is the final word from God on everything. And Latter-day Saints, because it's the culture that we are surrounded by, we very quickly adopt Christian methods of evaluating our own scriptures because it's the way everyone else does it. That's the reason why we're troubled when Joseph Smith makes changes to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, because he does. He makes dozens and dozens and dozens of changes. Now, most of them are things to bring the kind of 1600 style English up to a more 19th century style English. He changes, you know, which referring to a person to who, right?

Gerrit He changes grammatical things like that, which is frankly kind of hilarious. Joseph Smith making grammatical changes shows you, right? But he's really trying to learn and become more educated. And that can really trouble people because they'll say, well, if it was supposed to be who instead of that, why didn't God give that to Joseph Smith in the first place? And so it represents a misunderstanding of a couple of things. First, the point of translation. Translation is something that goes on in the church even today. When President Nelson gives his conference talk, the person who's translating that into Tagalog likely doesn't have the exact word to equal in each language because language is so diverse. What you do is you try to get as close as you can to the meaning and understanding of what was originally said.

Gerrit But the point of the translator is not to mimic the speaking style of the speaker and put the nouns in front of verbs, if that's how it goes in your language, or the other way around in your language. The point of the translator is for the listener to understand what was meant. That's the point of the translator. Well, Joseph has no problem making changes, not only to his own revelations, but also to the Book of Mormon. Why? Well, because if I make these changes to the Book of Mormon, it will read better, and then you'll understand it better. So someone might say, well, why didn't God just give that to him initially? I don't think we really have an answer for that, but it's a really weird criticism to believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the person who received every single one of those words from God also then doesn't have the power to be inspired by God to make further emendations nine years, eight, nine years later, right?

Gerrit And so I think that the very idea of Scripture being absolute, being hard and fast, being something that cannot be changed is a Protestant ideal that causes our backlash in the first place. I mean, it's troubling sometimes to my students to find out that Joseph Smith will go back and add to some of his revelations. Well, why would he go back and add to it? Well, because we know more now. And the point of the revelation is for you to understand God's will for you. It's not to be something set in stone so that you can say, this has never changed.

Richard So, but there's, I guess, kind of a false understanding of how the Bible even comes to be where this is even a thought that it said one time, that's where it is. It's like Moses and the tablets and it comes down.

Gerrit Etched them in there and that's the end. I mean, and that's again a very Protestant belief that the Bible, not all Protestants believe this, but the idea of the Bible being the inerrant Word of God is something that develops and is certainly what is believed by the majority of Christians in Joseph Smith's time. That literally every word, and they're primarily using the King James Bible, although some of them are using the Calvin's Geneva Bible. Either way, it is absolutely the Word of God. Every single word, every single is absolute. That idea means if something's outside of it or if something were to change what it is, well, then you're changing the Word of God.

Richard But that's kind of the idea though, is that it was just said once, and this is exactly how it is, and it just kind of passed through.

Gerrit Yeah, instead of our understanding of the thousands and thousands of variations in the different manuscripts of even the New Testament alone. I mean, people like Bart Ehrman estimate that there's more variations in New Testament manuscripts from the early days of the church, not our church, the Christian church, Jesus. Well, you know what? Our church. Our church, you know what? Yeah, our church, yeah, our church. But from the early days of Christianity, there are more variations in those New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Now think about that for a minute. The number of words in the New Testament, there are actually more differences, manuscript to manuscript in total than there actually are words, if you were to add them all up. Now some of them are benign and oh, why didn't we put a comma here? But some of them are pretty big deal. As we've talked about before on this podcast about the whole introduction of the Trinity verses that happens later in John, right?

Gerrit That that is an addition. Some gospel scholars believe that the last several verses of Mark are actually additions to the scripture because they don't appear in most of the early manuscripts and then only appear later. That at some point, some scribe was like, I don't like how this gospel just leaves you on the cliffhanger. They saw that the tomb was empty and the women ran away. It's like a bad investigation discovery that Angie's watching right now, probably. Angie, watching them? Nope, she won't talk, but she's not watching it, I don't think, but probably yes. Anyway, this idea that the scriptures that we end up with are absolutely perfect and pristine is an outgrowth of Protestant argument and Protestant thought. And you'll notice it's not the same thing and it's not the same argument that Catholics make. Look, Catholics revere the Bible, the Vulgate, the version that the Catholics use, which includes the Apocrypha.

Gerrit And if you want to listen to an episode on the Apocrypha, we have-

Richard There's a two-parter in season two?

Gerrit Yeah, one of our-

Richard It's fine.

Gerrit Richard was talking in it, so you will appreciate it, Aaron. Yeah, sorry, Aaron. But in Catholicism, truth is determined by both tradition and by scripture. This actually goes all the way back to the early Church Father Tertullian, who makes the argument that it's holy scripture in addition to tradition. Why? Because if you're claiming that your truth goes all the way back to the apostles, then how it's been done matters. Because, well, obviously, we're doing it this way because Peter wanted us to do it, and he's the one who started doing it, right? In most cases, that tradition is not actually traced back to Peter, or at least there's no way to trace it back to Peter, but at least that's the thought, tradition plus scripture. One of Martin Luther's major arguments, one of his biggest arguments, the reason why he says sola scriptura is the Bible alone completely independent of tradition is the only way, literally 100% full stop.

Gerrit It is the only way to have truth. And so tradition becomes meaningless and only the Bible text matters. Well, what happens then? If only the Bible text matters, then why is it as Joseph Smith would ask when he was a young boy, are there so many different Protestant denominations? If the Bible is this straightforward, you can understand every word just by reading it, book, then why is it that you can go on YouTube and if you're looking for a fun President's Day afternoon, you can go on YouTube and listen to a Calvinist pastor arguing with an Arminian pastor. They both love the Bible. Every argument they make will come from the Bible. Both of them are adamant that the Bible is the only word of God, and yet they will spend the entire debate telling the other person how wrong they are about their understanding of the same Bible.

Gerrit That really is what creates these issues among Protestant sects, and it's also the reason why I've said before on this podcast that whenever you're having a conversation with your friends who are Christians, you won't get very far into that conversation before that friend asks you at some point, well, what does the Bible say? Because truth has to be rooted in the Bible. Latter-day saints sometimes fall into that trap. In fact, early Latter-day saints fell into that trap when it came to the Book of Mormon. One of the first near-schisms in the church we talked about in one of our very early episodes back before R was locking people in the back of a squad car, although he said he's been there from the beginning.

Richard Yeah, from the beginning. He's been throwing people in cuffs in the back of his car.

Gerrit I really hope he is a law enforcement officer. Otherwise...

Richard I kind of hope he doesn't.

Gerrit If he's just some guy. Citizen's arrest. He's wearing a pith helmet and a blue armband, but this idea, it's actually something that almost causes this schism because Oliver Cowdery is going to criticize some of Joseph Smith's early revelations on the basis of them being different than the Book of Mormon. This idea that scripture is absolute, and everything that's not scripture is secondary. That is the Protestant culture of America working its way into Latter-day Saint thought. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm afraid I'm about to get a call from my stake president, who will say, Gerrit, you know we do believe in the scriptures. Like, obviously, we believe the scriptures are the word of God. But part of being a Latter-day Saint means believing that the prophet is, our current prophet is the person who declares doctrine for our church.

Gerrit And at times, he might declare things that you actually can't find in the scriptures. For instance, when he moved church to two hours, where do you find that in the scriptures? You certainly don't find it in the early Latter-day Saint history. It's not by tradition, because we were going to church for like eight and nine hours at a time. Church was an all-day thing. If you think it's rough sitting through an elders quorum lesson now, I mean, imagine if the elders quorum lesson was nine hours long. You'd be wanting to come up for air. Like, you know what, in the first four and a half hours, I was able to get through it, but the last the last three anyway, it's not that we don't think scriptures are the word of God. We do. But we just don't believe they are the only access to the word of God. And this is going to be the part that really, really frustrates some people, especially people in the back of the squad car.

Gerrit We believe that the prophet has the ability to receive revelation on things that aren't in the scriptures. This is what happens with Joseph Smith. When he declares things like hell doesn't exist, well, people call him a heretic and hundreds of people leave the church. And why? Because they pointed to the Book of Mormon talks about hell. The Bible talks about hell. How dare you say that hell doesn't exist? Because it doesn't. That's why. And so Latter-day Saints are always in this different perspective where we revere the scriptures. I mean, the Book of Mormon is how most of us gained our testimonies, I would guess. But the scriptures are not the end of our belief. I can believe something that I literally cannot find in the scriptures. Why? Because I believe in modern prophets. That you can believe something is true simply because the prophet in the Quorum of the Twelve issue it as a statement.

Gerrit Right? It does not. Now, you'll be able to find similarities in the scriptures. You'll be able to find things that relate in the scriptures. But you might not find the exact words in the scriptures. And that's okay. Now, I know that's kind of a long answer to get to this, but it really is important for a Latter-day Saint to understand even our mindset that immediately goes to the trigger of, if this word is different in this book than this book, then that shows there's something wrong that comes from our Protestant culture. Also, the other aspect of this is, what is Joseph Smith doing when he is translating the Bible? Is he going back to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and going, oh, it says, homo, homo ousion, not homo ousion. I don't know why Joseph has that accent, but actually we've already talked about it.

Gerrit Yeah, he's from the Sox. He's like, we're going to go to the church. Everybody on Sunday. Sorry, that was terrible. But this idea that what Joseph is doing is re-translating to try to get to the original meaning is I think probably not the original meaning, the original writing is not very reflective of Joseph Smith's translation efforts. He appears to be trying to help people understand the intent behind the scripture. At times, he might be recovering some of those plain and precious truths that are lost. At other times, he appears to be trying to say, this is what this means. A really good example of this is actually found in Luke, where it's the the the Lucan portion of the sermon on the Mount.

Gerrit In Luke, chapter 6, verse 29 and 30, verses 29 and 30, it says, again, this is the the Lucan version of the sermon on the Mount. And unto him that smiteth thee on one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. So that's, you know, similar to the Matthew Sermon on the Mount. And Joseph, in his Joseph Smith Translation of these passages, he actually makes a huge addition. And unto him who smiteth thee on the cheek, offer also the other cheek. Also, sorry, offer also the other. And then this is the addition. Or in other words, in other words, it's better to offer the other than to revile again. So here you can kind of get an idea of the type of changes that Joseph is often making.

Gerrit It's explanatory. It's so that you can understand what the original or what God expects you to do with this verse in your life right now. Not, oh, actually, that was a different type of Greek that they used for that term. Instead, it's, what should I be taking away from this right now? Or in other words, you should be willing, rather than you fighting back, you should be willing to give them your other cheek. Now, why does that matter? Well, because there literally were Christian radicals who believed in the literalness. If someone hits you, I literally have to have him hit my other cheek, because that way I'm doing what the scriptures say. Now, Joseph isn't dealing with very many people that are that far down the line of Christian radicalism, but you can tell that the point of this is to explain it in layman's terms. In other words, it's better for you to respond by saying, you can go ahead and hit my other cheek, than it is for you to hit them.

Gerrit That is this idea of peace. And then he goes on to make a huge expansion, an entire verse addition to verse 30. For it is better that thou suffer thine enemy to take these things than to contend with him. Verily I say to you, your Heavenly Father who seeth in secret shall bring that wicked one into judgment. So here you have more an addition of the scripture, but this is how many of Joseph's changes in the Joseph Smith Translation are. They are prophetic, revelatory clarity that's being offered, rather than let me talk about what was originally written when the first scribe wrote this verse down. The plain and precious parts that are being restored are really more the meaning or how we should treat the meaning of these scriptures.

Gerrit So back to our listeners question. When that change is made in the Joseph Smith Translation, the point of that change, at least I believe, is helping people understand what the intent of the phrasology of the Lord's Prayer. So let's read that again real quick. In Matthew 6 verse 13, where it says, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. And as is pointed out that in the Joseph Smith Translation, it says, and suffer us not to be led into temptation. The difference there, of course, is this description of what God is doing. These direct phrasologies from the Bible for biblical literalists actually create some kinds of problems. For instance, this is something very similar to what you have with Moses and Pharaoh.

Gerrit In the Bible, the way it actually reads in your King James Bible is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. That's what it reads. This actually leads to a whole host of, frankly, false understandings of what God is doing as Christians try to figure out how is it possible that God can harden Pharaoh's heart, what God's doing that. Now look, if you believe in reformed theology, which means that God is ultimately sovereign, then literally everything that happens happens because God caused it to happen. So that's not a hard thing to do. Of course, God hardened Pharaoh's heart because God wanted to do that. But then that butts very dangerously up against the idea of can God do something evil? Can God make someone angry? Would God do that?

Richard How would an omnibenevolent God do that?

Gerrit Yeah, how would a God who's all good make... So can Pharaoh resist if God hardens his heart? Can Pharaoh resist that? How would he resist? God's the one doing it. Where is the agency for Pharaoh? Well, I think in much of reformed theology tradition, there isn't any. But don't worry, it's not just Pharaoh who doesn't have any agency.

Richard No one does.

Gerrit None of us do. We are all completely depraved sinners, meaning we don't have the ability to do anything good. Nothing. Even when we're doing good things, we are not doing good things. We are utterly depraved. And so the fact that God is the one ultimately sovereign over whether or not we're saved or over whether or not we do good things, over whether or not our heart is hardened again, over whether or not we are tempted, that's something that's pretty easy to understand in reformed theology. It is not a hard thing to say that God led us into temptation in reformed theology, because God does exactly what God intends to do. It's God's will. I know I've said this before on this podcast, and so for those of you looking for the place to skip, maybe this is it.

Gerrit But frankly, you're this far in, you know what?

Richard It's usually this far before we start getting to the point anyway.

Gerrit We've been on the topic for a long time.

Richard I know, we're way ahead of schedule.

Gerrit I kind of feel like we should go, we need a tangent.

Richard Well, he asked about, you know, Sermon on the Mount and you're into Pharaoh, so I think we're there.

Gerrit Okay, we're already there. But let me pull up that scripture here real quick. From Exodus chapter 7 verse 3, it reads in the King James Bible, and I will harden Pharaoh's heart and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. So there, again, it sounds like the way that it's written in the King James Bible is that God is the one hardening Pharaoh's heart against allowing the children of Israel to leave. But what change does Joseph Smith make in the Joseph Smith Translation? And Pharaoh will harden his heart as I said unto thee, and thou shalt multiply my signs. So it's actually not the only place that this exact same type of change is being made by Joseph. I don't know what was originally written in the first time the Gospel of Matthew was written down, whenever that was, or if that's what Joseph is recovering when he makes that change in the Lord's Prayer.

Gerrit But that change that he makes changes your understanding of what it is God's role is in your salvation and agency to commit sin or to do righteous works. The way the Lord's Prayer is written in the Bible, and then of course the same in the Book of Mormon, writes to lead us not into temptation, which suggests that God ever could be the one leading us to temptation. Instead, this change is to say that God doesn't suffer us to be led, right? Don't suffer. Prevent us from being led. Not God is doing the leading. Essentially, the implied actor there is Satan. Prevent Satan from leading us. Now, back to the question though, well, why would it be exactly the same in the Book of Mormon, and then only clarified later from Joseph Smith?

Gerrit Now, we get into some speculations there that I can't fix, right? Because I'm not God, nor am I a prophet, so I don't know the answers to all those questions. I do know, though, that whenever it comes to the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and we're having a discussion about verses that are either exactly the same or different, or that you think should be different because we later found a different manuscript that says this Isaiah verse should be different from that Isaiah, that whole line of argument that comes from antagonists of the Church. It's important to ask yourself the opposite question. What if the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Mormon, which is very clearly the same as in the Book of Matthew in most respects, what if it was radically different? What if it had all kinds of different phrases? Everything was rewritten. Everything was different. What would the reaction to it have been?

Gerrit My guess is there would have been a really strong reaction to wait a minute. That's not how Jesus said it in the Bible. That's where new scripture always is in a no-win situation among people that are biblical literalists. Because if you make the new scripture or if God delivers the new scripture exactly the same, in exactly the same words as the Bible, the King James Bible, well, then you're just copying the Bible. This isn't really from God. You're just stealing this from the Bible and just repeating the words. If it's totally different, well, then it can't be true because it's different than the Bible. So you see, in both ways, there's no way to win however those words are delivered. I don't know why God had the particular words appear on the seer stone that he did in Joseph's translation. But my guess is because God knew that all of the early people who were going to be getting the Book of Mormon were King James Bible reading Christians, that God rendered those words, which I'm sure were spoken in some kind of Nephites language so that they could understand it when Jesus spoke to them, that he rendered them to be the same as the King James Bible in order for people to understand the unity between the two, that it's the same Jesus who appears in the New World that was the Jesus of the Old World.

Gerrit And again, you actually can't get away from this controversy because if the words are exactly the same, well, then why are they the same? Why is Joseph just copying this out of the Bible? He just sat down with the Bible and just copied it out. And if the words aren't exactly the same, well, then it's blasphemy because you're just changing the words of the Bible. So there's really no way to win that kind of a discussion. The nature of that Joseph Smith Translation, there's some good Latter-day Saint books out there that talk about this, that you can see that there are lots of things that are going on. I think there's some revelation going on, revealing new teachings. I think there is some recapturing of the original intent. And I think there's also this helping current readers understand what it is that God intended in the first place.

Gerrit While we're talking about the Sermon on the Mount, I thought it might be fun to discuss a little bit about what Joseph provided some commentary on some of these things. We were having a discussion in our gospel doctrine class about some of the meanings of these things. And so I thought, you know, Joseph comments on these things. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most commented on thing that there is in all of Christian writings. So for instance, Joseph Smith is once speaking to a group of people. This is from Joseph's Journal. And as he's talking about things, there's an insertion into the journal that apparently there's an objection being made to the prophet's meekness, right? Blessed are the meek, right? And this is what Joseph responds, I am meek and lowly in heart. I will personify Jesus for a moment to illustrate. And you inquirers, woe unto you doctors, woe unto you scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites.

Gerrit So Joseph is trying to say what I think, you know, Elder Bednar also taught relatively recently that meekness does not mean that you don't stand up for the truth, right? We sometimes think the word meek is a pretty negative connotation, honestly, especially in today's TikTok empire, right? That the idea that you're just a quiet, mousy person, and you never, I just, I don't rattle any cages, and I never say what I think. Joseph does not believe that's the definition of meek. He believes the definition of meek can include the Savior is meek, obviously, and also saying woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.

Richard And doctors.

Gerrit Well, I deliberately didn't repeat the doctor's part because, yeah, they weren't medical doctors either. So, yeah. But I don't know if there was a lot of history of PhDs rolling around the ancient world. I'm going to go out and learn and say that there weren't. At least there were fewer than, you know, which makes, I guess, the fact that you have to condemn them even worse. Joseph goes on, You cannot find the place where I ever went that I found fault with their food, with their drink or with their house or with their lodging. No, never. And this is what is meant by the meekness and lowliness of Jesus. Very interesting that to Joseph, meekness does not mean that you don't speak your mind and teach the truth. It means that you don't ever criticize the things that people are graciously providing you.

Gerrit That when someone gives you a meal, you don't say, oh, this isn't what I wanted. Richard actually just ordered lunch, so I'm literally about to violate this the moment it gets here. They didn't have mustard and I nearly lost it.

Richard It's like, hey, here's this free lunch delivered to you where they don't have mustard, come out.

Gerrit Yeah, we almost called our friend in law enforcement to throw Richard into the back of a car and force him to listen to this podcast on repeat until he changed his ways. But it's an interesting thing there that this is very similar for Joseph and other ways that if you had to just distill down, what does Joseph think the gospel is? He really believes it is loving other people. And so part of that is you can't be so proud that you're willing to hurt other people because of your own preferences, right? It's not a tenet of the gospel about whether or not the bed you're sleeping in is comfortable. Now perhaps some of you out there need a new mattress and you're thinking it's becoming a tenet of our gospel. This has to be changed. But you know, when someone does it, and you think about it, everybody think about it in your life, when you've done something really kind for someone, and not only do they not really thank you for it, they criticize what it is that you did.

Richard Yeah, and nothing is my wife's wrath more kindled. Well, then when people are ungrateful, it drives most people nuts.

Gerrit And I think that that's kind of this definition that Joseph has. Look, a meek person is someone who is thinking about others more than they're thinking about themselves, which is all part and parcel to what Joseph thinks that the real aspect of the gospel is loving other people. In another place in his journal, this is actually from a discourse that Willard Richards is recording, May 21st, 1843. He says, I have not an idea that there's been a great many, very many good men since Adam. There was one good man, Jesus. Many think a prophet must be a great deal better than everybody else. Suppose I will condescend, yes, I will call it, condescend to be a great deal better than any of you. I would be raised up to the highest heaven and who should I have to accompany me? And then he goes on to give this, you've probably heard this before, but this is where this comes from.

Gerrit I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm and administers to the poor and divides his substance than the long, cool-faced hypocrites. I don't want any of you to think that I'm very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light that he gives them. We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto you do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. So that's a very interesting thing there. And again, you get this over and over again in Joseph Smith's, in his public ministry that what matters to him is whether or not people love one another. Look, he's not giving you a license. I don't know how many people listening now are like, see, I can say whatever curse words I want to say. I mean, Richard already muted himself on the other mic and started just a string of exponents.

Richard First of all, growing up in rural Idaho, I am very familiar with the creative way that language is used compared to.

Gerrit Like crick.

Richard Like crick, compared to suburban Utah. So I also don't cast much judgment. My favorite bishop growing up had some aggressive language, but he was a loving and wonderful man.

Gerrit So we're not advocating that everyone listening to this podcast curse, except when they can't find a way to pay for the premium content. But it really is a reflection, Joseph believes, of whether or not you are converted to Christ with how you treat other people. He's not saying go ahead and start cursing every other word. But what he's saying is if you are priding yourself that you don't ever curse, but you treat everyone around you like garbage, well, it doesn't matter that you don't curse. You have omitted the weightier matters of the law. And that is the part that Joseph will continually come back to. Let me pull up one more example. This is from a July 9th, 1843 discourse that Willard Richards is again recording. By the way, that means that whoever had to transcribe it pounded their head against the table a few times because Willard Richards is a doctor.

Gerrit He's not only someone who has multiple pistols concealed everywhere, which if you don't understand that joke, you'll have to go back and listen to our Carthage ones where we are mocking a fake documentary. But he is a terrible handwriting. And if you're a historian, whenever you see it's Willard Richards, you're like, oh great, I'm going to pick up every third one of these words. Anyway, going on with this topic, and again, you can see part of the sermon on the Mount being quoted here. Joseph remarked that all was well between him and the heavens, that he had no enmity against anyone. And as the prayer of Jesus or his pattern, so prayed Joseph, Father, forgive me my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me. For I freely forgive all men. If we would secure and cultivate the love of others, we must love others, even our enemies, as well as our friends.

Gerrit Why is it that this babbler gains so many followers and retains them? You know, he's saying that this is what people ask. Because I possess the principle of love. All I can offer the world is a good heart and a good hand. Mormons can testify whether I'm willing to lay down my life for a Mormon. If it's been demonstrated that I've been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die for a Presbyterian, a Baptist or any other denomination. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul. Civil and religious liberty were diffused into my soul by my grandfathers while they dandied me on their knees. And shall I want friends? No. This idea again that the whole world is actually desperate, desperate for people to care about them. I mean, you see this with the social media things and how it's often so harmful to youth because there's such a desire to get likes, to get retweets, to get people to care about them, to make them famous.

Gerrit And here Joseph teaches this, the pure principle. If you want people to love you, then you need to love them. And I really focus on that last part that he talks about where he says, you know, not just your friends. Boy, that is a really difficult thing to come to terms with. Because look, obviously, you know, I'm here podcasting with my friend. I didn't go find my greatest enemy and slap him into the chair here and say, let's get started. I won't even let you speculate on who my greatest enemy is. But also Richard, same person.

Richard Yeah, it started out as friends. Now we're in a loveless marriage.

Gerrit Yep, that's exactly right. But this, the real key of discipleship and the hardest part of it from the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer is, can you show love to people who are not your friends? When he's saying, pray for your enemies, my enemies? I sometimes mention them in my prayers, if you know what I mean, but I am rarely praying that good things happen to them. And this is something I think is really important for Latter-day Saints, because it's really easy to feel like you're doing a good job and you're being a good person when you have good and friendly relationships with your friends and the people that you know. If every time your friend, you know, needs something, you are Johnny on the spot, willing to help out. Well, that's great.

Gerrit What if it's not your friend who needs something? Are you Johnny on the spot and willing to help out? That concept is so foreign to the world when Jesus teaches it. And frankly, it's so foreign to the world today that you love people not because they're your friends, but because they're God's children, that you love people, even people who can't do anything for you, that you love people even if they are your enemies. Now, look, that doesn't mean that we allow someone who's harming us to continue to harm us. We don't believe in literally giving someone the cheek over and over again to be slapped. But the true measure of discipleship is whether or not we love the people that we aren't already friends with. And the reason why, as Jesus points out, is the publicans and sinners do also.

Gerrit The evil people in this world have friends. Richard has friends. The evil people have friends, and they're kind to their friends. Drug lords send gifts to their friends and their family. The evil and corrupt politicians have friends in their corruption. The Gadianton and robbers had friends that helped them on their way. Just being kind to the people that are kind to you, if you aren't kind to anyone, at least start there. Let's start baby steps. Let's be kind to the people that are kind to us. Let's not criticize the food they brought us or the place they're giving us to sleep. But then also, at some point, we need to be able to extend our love to beyond just the people that we already have as friends.

Gerrit Because if all you do is do service for and love the people that are your friends that already love you, then you actually end up not being any different than the evil people of this world. The difference between an evil person and a righteous person is that righteous person loves even the person that can't do anything for them. They love that person even who is not their friend. They do service for that person even who might be their enemy. And that is a very tall order. But it's also something that Joseph Smith is, he is not just someone saying these things. This is something that Joseph Smith demonstrated throughout his life. He demonstrated the principle and the ability to forgive others and to treat them with love. Let me just quote from the Relief Society Minute Book where he's preaching this topic to the Relief Society.

Gerrit This is 9 June, 1842. He says, The object of this society is to reform persons, not to take those that are corrupt, but if they repent, we are bound to take them and by kindness sanctify and cleanse them from all unrighteousness by our influence and watching over them. Nothing will have such influence over people as the fear of being disfellowshipped by so goodly a society as this. Now, the point of this conversation is they're talking about whether or not the sister who is apparently a sinner should be admitted to the Relief Society. And so after he says this, Joseph says, then take sister O as Jesus received sinners into his bosom. Sister O, in the name of the Lord, I now make you free. And from this hour, if anything should be found against you, nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand and to watch over them with tenderness.

Gerrit When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, oh, what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind. It is one evidence that men are unacquainted with the principle of godliness to build the contraction of feeling and the lack of charity. So again, this is a commentary on who we need to be if we want to be followers of Christ, this lack of charity, the love of God. Back to the quote. The power and glory of godliness is spread out on a broad principle to throw out the mantle of charity. God does not look on sin with allowance, but when men have sinned, there must be allowance made for them. All the religious world is boasting of righteousness. It is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind and retard our progress by filling us with self-righteousness.

Gerrit The nearer we get to our Heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion upon perishing souls, to take them upon our shoulders and to cast their sins behind our back. If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another. President Smith then referred to them the conduct of the Savior when he was taken and crucified. Well, that goes right to the heart of it. That however horrible people have treated us, the Savior is going to say of the Roman soldiers who are nailing him to the cross, Father forgive them for they know not what they do. This idea of pure love of other people is really where Joseph wants people to be. People to get in their discipleship. And it's a great example of whether or not someone is close to Jesus, isn't whether or not they're able to not swear a stream as long as their arm, but how do they treat other people?

Gerrit Are they kind to people when they don't need to be? Are they giving of their time and their talents to others, even when that person can't give anything back? Are they looking to be a peacemaker rather than causing more strife and contention? Are they devoted to following God's principles, not just in the step by step commandments of the law, but in their love of other people? So my hope is after studying these things that we can all recommit ourselves to love other people. Joseph once was visited by a socialist from Europe, and as that socialist had commentary on all kinds of things about Mormons, Joseph eventually said to him that the great principle of Christianity is love, and there should be more of this love spirit among his followers than there should be anywhere else in the world. And so we can all do some self introspection.

Gerrit I know I'm doing it right now, thinking, boy, I'm a hypocrite as I do this podcast, but that we can all reach out and love to other people, outside of just the circle that is safe to us, the people that are our close friends, and demonstrate this kind of love as much as we possibly can to other people because we are all children of God. Thank you so much for listening this week.

Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time.

Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

R, listener email from a law enforcement officer

Aaron from Tooele, Utah, listener email ("Hello Dr. Dirkmaat only")

3 Nephi 13:12; Matthew 6:13 (KJV)

Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 6:13

1837 edition of the Book of Mormon

Bart Ehrman's estimate of New Testament manuscript variants

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:9-20

Tertullian on scripture and tradition

Luke 6:29-30 (KJV)

Joseph Smith Translation, Luke 6:29-30

Exodus 7:3 (KJV and Joseph Smith Translation)

Joseph Smith's journal, on meekness

David A. Bednar on meekness (talk not named on air)

Joseph Smith discourse, May 21, 1843, recorded by Willard Richards

2 Peter 1:19

Joseph Smith discourse, July 9, 1843, recorded by Willard Richards

Matthew 5:46-47

Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, June 9, 1842

Luke 23:34

Joseph Smith's conversation with a visiting European socialist (not named on air)

Where does listener R often play the podcast?

From 1600 to 1843

Percentages said on air

Putting numbers to words

What this episode talks about more than usual

Names said most

Signature words