If we have laboured this word it is only because of your apparent intransigence in not conceding points in the first place, and because this has been your choice. You have been silent on the rest of the article.

Nothing from you about the serious issue of the Mormon Jesus being simply Joseph’s older brother and the implications of that idea as it works out in the “great plan of happiness.”

Not a word about the hypocrisy in damning all Christian churches in the nineteenth century, the very foundation of Mormon claims, only to join today the parade so eloquently described and ridiculed by John Taylor.

No comment on the “eternal” and uncompromising nature of polygamy being reduced to an historical curiosity, taught as vital and of eternal consequence in the nineteenth century, still clearly understood and taught within my lifetime with the same fervour, though not practised, only to be obfuscated by dishonest and misleading church leaders today.

As for being “an offender for a word,” a neat insertion of the work of Peterson and Ricks’ ironically amusing little work, when they write of “anti-Mormons” playing word games I can only think of pots and kettles (if you know that saying) To label a critic as “anti-Mormon” is to play the very word game they accuse others of playing.

We will, if you wish, leave it there however, and I do honestly wish you and yours a very happy and joyful Christmas. As, indeed, I wish everyone who is kind enough to visit this blog and share their thoughts and experiences.

I pointed out to you that the beatitudes use a word that is defined almost identically (makarios, which Strong’s Concordance of the Bible defines as “supremely blest; by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy), and says that those who do various good things (be peacemakers etc). will be “makarios.”

I have no quarrel with including the concept of blessed in Greek makarios. I have no problem with the concept that happiness is a gift–or a blessing–of God, and I agree with all your commentary that our blessings all come from God. I also agree with you that only in and through the mercy and grace of my Savior can I ever hope to be saved and to return to him.

However, I do not reject the clear Biblical message that our obedience means something, and that we will be blessed/happy also for our obedience. As Jesus Christ himself said: “If ye know these things, [blessed/]happy are ye if ye do them.” John 13:17

I apologize if, in my defense of my beliefs (which I believe to be true), I have become contentious, for contention is not of God.

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

I am sorry you are not prepared, or perhaps not equipped, to engage with the subject at a more mature level. I am disappointed but not really surprised. You begin from the non-negotiable position that “the church is true” (a statement you never find in Scripture); you then conclude, “therefore everything its leader’s say must be true”; then every every thought, idea, even every text of Scripture that challenges the claim must be untrue, no matter that it has merit, and the only way to deal with the situation is to repeatedly assert Mormon “truth.”

John 13:17 gives us the same makarios, “blessed” and not happy, so you really only beg the question when you put it forward to reinforce your claim. You really need to engage with what “blessedness” actually means and not what you would like it to mean. By the way, earlier you asserted it was about what the word means in English. This simply begs the question and doesn’t begin to address what is or isn’t a good translation. Joseph Smith appears to have decided “blessed” is a good translation. Interesting, isn’t it, that you don’t agree with him?

You put words into my mouth when you assert I find no happiness in the gospel. My claim, backed by actual facts, is that “happy” is a thoroughly inadequate translation for makarios/barak and on that scholars agree. This may seem a minor point but it is not.

The Mormon understanding puts the emphasis on the happy state of industrious and obedient man, demonstrating how man/works-centred Mormonism is, while the correct understanding, as I have carefully demonstrated, emphasises God’s judgement of poor and inadequate man, God’s declared and constant grace towards undeserving but loved by God man. Here the emphasis is on God’s undeserved love towards us when we recognise our poor state before him.

In the former our “happiness” depends fully on our changing circumstances, in the latter our “blessedness” depends on God’s constant and unchanging love. This is not a minor point but core to the gospel.

If you reject Elder Eyring’s suggestion that happiness is a worthy fruit of obedience, you also are rejecting Jesus’s own teaching. At the last passover supper, Jesus washed His apostles’ feet, even those of Judas Iscariot. He told His apostles that they should serve each other as He served them. Then, He told them they would be happy if they did what He told them to do:

” If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” John 13:17

I believe Him.

You make the fundamental error of making Mormonism and all things Mormon the starting point and the measure of all other things.I criticised Henry Eyring’s remarks on the basis of what we already know from Scripture (the Bible). You have simply quoted the Book of Mormon, which is bound to agree with Eyring, since it comes from the same religion. The point here is not what Mormons make “happiness” mean but what happiness means in the world and in the economy of heaven. According to Scripture, happiness is a transitory thing, defined by circumstances and changed by fortune.

When Leah’s servant bore Jacob a son she called him Asher because, she said, “Happy am I! For women have called me happy.” (Gen.30:13)

“Judah and Israel,” we are told, “were as many as the sand of the sea. They ate and drank and were happy.” (1 Kings 4:20)

The Queen of Sheba declared to Solomon, “Happy are your men! Happy are your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom!” (1 Kings 10:8)

“And Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart. But when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he neither rose nor trembled before him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai.” (Esther 5:9 – note here how passing was Haman’s “happiness”)

The word of the LORD came to Zechariah and spoke of, “glad occasions and happy festivals” (Zech.8:19)

Paul writes of being delighted to see, “how happy Titus was because his spirit had been refreshed by all of you.” (2Cor.7:13)

Happiness is tied, in the minds of the Scripture writers, with circumstances, that change (consider how quickly Haman’s “happiness” changed when he saw Mordecai) The fact that Henry B Eyring can soliloquise so fervently about happiness, the fact that you can defend him by reference to the Book of Mormon, demonstrates how far Mormon teaching is from how the Bible understands these things.

Now consider the fact that you had to quote an obscure and, frankly, unreliable source to prove your point, not even agreeing with the JST. Consider that most translations give us blessed and consider the root of the original word. Put those together with the plain fact that “happiness” is a purely subjective and passing state, even according to the Bible. Then consider what the Beatitudes are actually telling us.

Jesus is not describing a state of happiness enjoyed by the faithful and law-abiding. He is making an objective judgement of these people; not what they may feel but what God thinks of them and what, on that account, they are – blessed. Remember that Barak means to give something of value to another. Go back through the careful Bible study I have presented and consider what God has given us in Christ and then make the connection between that and God’s grace (which is God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense) We are blessed not, as Eyring insists, because we are deserving but because of God’s free and gracious provision to the poor in spirit.

Your original argument is a criticism of this quotation by Henry B. Eyring: “You have felt happiness as you have kept the commandments of God. That is the promised fruit of living the gospel (see Mosiah 2:41)”

From this you criticize my faith by saying that happiness is “trite and temporary,” and that it is not one of the listed fruits of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23. We are not yet talking about Hebrew or Greek. We are talking about modern English. Your entire criticism falls right here, unless you can prove that Mormons use the word happiness to mean some kind of trite and temporary buzz.

Of course that is not what we mean, nor is that what the common meaning of happiness is. In fact, if you want to know what Elder Eyring meant by happiness, the best place to look would be the Book of Mormon scripture he cites, Mosiah 2:41:

” 41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.”

The happiness Elder Eyring speaks of is a “blessed and happy state.” (Sounds to me like a good English equivalent of the Greek word makarios that the King James translators rendered most times as blessed and sometimes as happy.) This state, according to the above-quoted scripture, is described as being blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual, as being received into heaven, and as dwelling in the presence of God in a state of never-ending happiness.

So, this is what Elder Eyring calls the “promised fruit of living the gospel.” This happiness is neither “trite nor temporary.”

You may criticize this scripture because it links this “blessed and happy state” with obedience. This, however, is exactly what Jesus Christ does in his Beatitudes.

It is the poor in spirit, the meek, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake that are blessed/happy, not just anyone or everyone. These are works. And as Jesus says, “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.”

Jesus Christ, when he said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” (John 14:15 ) did not negate grace. Neither do we as we try to show our love by keeping his commandments.

Try engaging with the points I carefully made. Look at the root word in the original language, engage meaningfully with the fact that it means to make generous provision for, try and understand that against the wider Christian message of grace and then share what you conclude. It isn’t enough to assert on the basis of one of the dodgiest translations ever that it means happy. You only undermine your own credibility. If it carries the meaning and intent I have shown what are the implications for a religion of works? How far away from what I have said is Mormonism? How closer to the Bible?

Ted, I am sorry but it was an honest mistake but, truthfully, you would have been better off sticking with the JST which, by the way, gives us, “Blessed are the poor in spirit…”

As to the Julia Evelina Smith Parker Translation, I will leave readers to make up their own minds by reading about this lady here http://www.bible-researcher.com/julia-smith.html As for me, I don’t plan to have this translation on my shelf any time soon. Oh, dear me.