Questions about the "newly revealed account of John the Beloved’s Testimony of Jesus the Messiah"

I finished reading the document last night, and am rereading it again today, highlighting things in it to help me focus and ponder


I have questions I would like to take to the Lord in regards to some of the things in that document. For example: Peter says he's going to ascend to the deep. Can't be the ocean because that's a descent (even though the current Bible translations have it that he decides to go fishing; I expect the people putting the NT together had no idea what this story was talking about so they edited it to "make more sense").

Ascend - go up
Deep - deep space? Someplace deep anyhow

Ark? What ark? Where? A spaceship? A portal to the heavens? If we saw it, would we immediately think "ark" or would we think "elevator" or something else?

Jesus stood at the sacred entry, and it was at the horizon of the morning star that he did this. Were they on the horizon on earth? Were they actually in space? How did they do this ascent on their own? Did Jesus teach them some woo-woo things so that they knew how to leave this dimension and go into another?

They didn't recognize Jesus at first because his glory was so bright. That's probably the only thing in this part that I can almost-fully understand.

Ritual meal I'm guessing is the sacrament. The Lord asks, "Have you had the sacrament?" (so, they could have hung out there for a while with no celestial beings coming around, since they could have had time to have the ritual meal before the Lord got there?) Then he tells them to approach the veil to the east and they'll find what they're looking for. So, what was it they were looking for?

Are they in a temple? They can't be in the apostate Jewish temple because they've probably been excommunicated and, after killing God's son, I expect heaven wouldn't have a "portal" there anymore. The veil is on the east. Is there another one on the west or south or north or all three?

They approached the veil and were overcome by the multitude of what was received. I expect that is referring to knowledge and understanding, probably things that cannot be written because there's no way they'd know how to put it into words.

Then, John tells Peter that it's the Lord who's talking to them. Peter puts on clothes because he "did not wear the apparel." What apparel? The clothing we see in our temples today? If literal, why did he need to put on clothing? Were all of the others wearing clothing? Ceremonial clothing is what I am supposing. But he needed to wear it, apparently, before he could approach the Lord? Where did he get the clothing? Did he bring it with him? Was it just laying around near the door of the ark? Were they already wearing "the apparel," but he took his off?

Peter cast himself into the great deep (remember, this is up, not down), but the others entered the ark and parted the veil because they were not bound by the limits of this world. So, before then, they had not actually entered the ark? Nor parted the veil? And Peter, being impetuous, didn't just part the veil, but jumped in wholeheartedly (somehow, I picture a friend, Daryl, when I see Peter doing this).

Not being bound by the limits of this world they can defy gravity? Or is it entering a different dimension? Or both?
"... they saw a fire burning at the offering place and the Flesh Offering was upon it, who is also the Bread of Life." What does this quote mean? Jesus was upon the fire? He was upon the offering place? He was the fire?

Eat the food of the rising sun, Jesus says, then gives them his flesh and blood. Is it literally flesh? Literally blood? Bread and wine? Something else? Why is it called the food of the rising sun instead of the food of the Rising Son?

This document is so dang deep I can't see why people are so busy arguing about it (especially against it). It seems to me that the most effective use of this thing is to study it, ponder it, and ask God what it's talking about.

I am reminded of Lemuel and Laman who were discussing their father's dream. Nephi brought up the idea that they could understand it if they asked God about it. They rejected that idea, apparently thinking that God would not tell ordinary people like them anything.

Maybe we shouldn't be arguing about this new revelation. Maybe we shouldn't be looking for ways to prove it did not come from God. Maybe, instead, we should be pondering it, trying to figure it out, and be taking it to God. That's my intention, because I'm more interested in understanding it than in arguing about it.

The Fulness of the Record of John?

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.
18  And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.
Doctrine and Covenants 93

I've not read the pdf (the quote below is a link to it), but I intend to. It might prove enlightening.

... a newly revealed account of John the Beloved’s Testimony of Jesus the Messiah 

Edited to add: I've been reading this pdf. It is the testimony of John the Beloved, not John the Baptist. Still, there is incredible enlightenment. I had no idea that the Father was so closely involved with us. I was pretty sure that Jesus was and is, but the Father seemed so remote to me. My mind is enlightened, my soul is lifted up to the heavens. I feel within my heart to proclaim my gratitude to God for this revelation, and feel even more desire to serve Him and only Him.

It also is sobering to me to realize that it would have been much harder to listen to a man who says the things Jesus said about himself and about his standing with the Father, than it is to accept a simple messenger from the Lord, a messenger who continually admits he is not worthy of our adoration, but is like us, and is only here, pointing us to the Savior, because the Lord called him to do the task.

Jesus Said What?!?

My daughter brought this interpretation to my attention. It seems that Jesus was not preaching pacifism at all when he preached to turn the other cheek, give someone both your cloak and coat (in this interpretation, shirt and coat), and to go the extra mile.

I love this interpretation. It is from Tumblr.

Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   
(via thefullnessofthefaith)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry. (via central-avenue)

I'm not sure how valid the interpretation is. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the input.

In my search, I found this thread:

www.online-literature.com/forums

I also found an article that is awesome, and talks about this. It is found here.

Jesus never taught passivity in the face of evil. Jesus also never taught that violence is the appropriate response to evil.

What makes much more sense is to find a meaning that meshes with all the other passages that call us to love our enemies and do good to them that misuse us. You do them no good by reflecting back their violence; that is what is meant by resisting evil - being so resistant that we act as a brick wall and bounce the evil back - retaliate in a like manner. 

You do them no good by fleeing and letting them think that they've won 

YOU LOVE YOUR ENEMY when you show them how they are being unjust and when you give them the opportunity to grow and learn from that experience and to be open to God's grace to change their violent and unjust and oppressive ways.

Nothing can be assumed when you read the Bible. It contains the word of God, but you have to dig it out for yourself - you have to read between the lines and set the words in the context of the time so that you hear what is being said the way the writer and the listeners meant it and heard it to mean at the time it was spoken.
Let me demonstrate this and describe the social situation at the time and what this word picture would have meant to those who heard it in the first place.

Let's look at each of these three directives from Jesus to those who would lead Jesus' third way of creative, loving, non-violent resistance.

Okay, it looks like the bottom line for this interpretation may come from Walter Wink, a Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City.

Critiquing the words of a true servant of God

The Lord Jesus Christ has asked one of His servants to preach via the written word and by mouth. As a result, the man has written several books. His most controversial work, Passing the Heavenly Gift, got him cast out of the church that professes to not only honor and worship the Man who gave him the words to speak, but this church professes to be His own true and living church. I do agree that the Lord Jesus Christ is still working with this church; what I cannot fathom is how those who profess to "know" Christ cannot recognize His words. How can one not hear the voice of the Master in so many of the words spoken and written by the servant?

Yes, PTHG is a painful, even horrid, book to read at times - but the conclusion reached at the end of the book is that the LDS church is still Jesus' church. He is still working with it. And the fact that it has been fulfilling scripture does not make the author who points that out apostate, nor a devil, nor a demon - nor misguided.

Recently, someone said this:

I have noticed numerous instances of problems related to logic, consistency of argument, rhetorical manipulations and other devices that I found troubling. When read with charity and a sincere desire for light and truth, these earlier works can be thrillingly inspiring, albeit flawed. No book is perfect, and we have the Holy Ghost to aid us in discerning light and truth.

The above problems I have noticed in DS's earlier works seem to have multiplied considerably in PTHG.

This person is a person who I believe is attempting to bring us poor "apostates" back to the fold. To some degree the person seems to be sincere, yet they do not "feel" right. My gift of discernment tells me this person is one to be wary of. My reply is below:

I can see this point of view if one does not recognize Denver as a biblical-type prophet of God. Much of what he says is colored by the fact that he has seen "the vision of all," that he has seen and spoken with both the Father and the Son, and that he has conversed with Joseph Smith jr.

We, lacking those experiences, view all that Denver has written from a carnal, Babylonic mindset. We believe we see flaws. We believe ourselves not only justified, but saintly when we point out what we believe to be errors based upon our mere pittance of experience and understanding. Surely Christ is tempted to laugh heartily at our vain and self-serving justifications of what He attempts to teach us through the servants He has called by His own voice. Surely we are puffed up and wise in our own sight. Surely we are so stiff-necked and high minded that we think we know more than God, thus considering ourselves virtuous when we reject truth in whole or in part.

My point in bringing this up is not to diss the person who wrote his/her feelings. My point is this: We humans think we know so much. If we view ourselves as learned, then we think we are wise. I see this all over. The person above is simply the most recent example I have come across.

We think ourselves wiser than God. We think we can parse His words, critique the manner in which His servants speak, find fault and flaws because what is said does not match our reasoning nor our understanding. Rather than being humble, rather than recognizing the voice of the Master, we would prefer to debate, criticize, and do anything that does not entail the possibility that we are in need of repentance, that we are - indeed - less than the dust of the earth, unworthy of salvation, unworthy of the time and effort that Christ puts into us again and again in the hopes that we will at last turn and face Him.

As for me, I am a sinner. I am less than the dust of the earth. I am unworthy of the incredible love and patience my Lord extends to me. I am overawed by the fact that He has deigned to speak through a servant who fears no man, no institution, no government. I am humbled by the fact that I had never supposed before: that the Lord often speaks through those who are not part of the accepted hierarchy. Yet, there it is in scriptures. Even Jesus had no ecclesiastical authority. He and the general authorities of His time would often butt heads.

We are just like the ancient Jews - whether in Jesus' time or in Jeremiah's or Isaiah's time. "If our days had been in those days," we opine, "we/I would have listened to the prophets. We/I would not have cast them out, nor persecuted them, nor killed them."

And what does Jesus have to say to our opining? This:

23  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28  Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30  And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31  Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34  ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Matthew 23

 This scathing rebuke belongs to us, folks. It belongs to our self-satisfied generation, we who think it is impossible for us to go astray as long as we stay with the humans who lead a corporation even if they contradict the words of Christ as given through his prophet (Joseph Smith) who we are taught didn't really understand things like we do today - and that "new prophets supersede old prophets" and can even contradict the scriptures with impunity.

If we are the holy church of God we are, according to the scriptures, under condemnation. If we are not under condemnation we are not the holy church of God. This is according to Moroni who saw US.

35  Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not.  But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

36  And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

37  For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

38  O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?  Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ?  Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

39  Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?

40  Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

41  Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.

Let us awake to our awful situation. The times of the gentiles is nearly fulfilled. We are about to lose what we think we have, and it will be given to the righteous descendants of Lehi, as promised by Jesus when He came and preached to them after His resurrection. Let us humble ourselves even to the dust of the earth. Let us view ourselves in our polluted state, with our tables covered with vomit (regurgitated, predigested food instead of the meat of the gospel).

Let us repent of our unbelief and turn to Christ, searching in humility and patience with our whole souls to see his His face in this life, for if we cannot stand in His presence now, what makes us think we can stand in His presence when He returns again with the hosts (Fathers) of heaven?