"Turn and Face the Strange Changes: Just Gonna Have to Be a Different Man"

In 1971, when I was a wee lad of six, David Bowie, rising talent of British Glitter Rock, released an album with his soon to become iconic feature track, "Changes". The chorus has long moved me, especially the line, "Turn and face the strange ch-ch-changes, just gonna have to be a different man." The import of these words will become evident.

I consider scripture study to be communion with Deity. Whether or not I hear His actual voice or perceive His tender tones every time, just to read even a verse brings me peace and motivation. Unlike anything else, the scriptures stand out to me as a constant source of inner strength.

So it was that on Thursday last upon awaking I prayed to The Father and asked Him to guide my studies to something that would inspire me and help my brethren. I felt moved to reach for a specific tome, and the following story unraveled. Bear with, and you will be rewarded.

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ has (among so many others) a particular recurring theme. The teaching is presented in the form of a couplet where two arguments, one positive and the other negative are juxtaposed. (2 Nephi 1:20) The form of the couplet is immediately recognizable from linear algebra: If P then Q; if not P, then not Q. 

(If P) Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments 
(then Q) ye shall prosper in the land;    
(If not P) but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments 
(then not Q) ye shall be cut off from my presence.

However, in the Semitic fashion of rendering such statements (If P then Q; if not P, then not Q), unlike the European model, there is not perfect symmetry between each argument. Rather than having one argument be positive and the second argument be the direct contrapositive, in the Semitic version one proposition in the contrapositive will differ from its equivalent proposition in the positive. The Semitic contrapositive was then not a simple restatement of the positive negated, but was a narrowing of what the equivalent positive proposition was meant to convey. Said differently, the divergent proposition in the contrapositive defines its equivalent positive proposition.. Thus,

+Keep Commandments ~ -Keep Commandments
+Prosper in the Land ~ +Be in Presence of God

In this fashion the Nephite prophets would consistently demonstrate that as the Nephites followed the commandments of The Lord they prospered, that is, they were in the Presence of The Lord. But as the Nephites would not keep His commandments, they were cut off from His Presence.

That is an Un-Biblical Book of Mormon-ism!

The aforementioned linear argument and its contrapositive are recurrent themes in The Book of Mormon. The implication of the ultimate objective of the positive argument (If ye keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land/Be in my Presence) was made clear by the Prophet Abinadi: (Mosiah 12:33)

I know if ye keep the commandments of God
ye shall be saved.

It is at this point in particular that some of my fellow Christians raise the following charge: "That is an un-Biblical Book of Mormon-ism! The Bible clearly teaches that one need only believe to have eternal life, but Mormons teach that you need to keep the commandments."

Indeed those of my fellow Christians who object to the teachings of the aforementioned Book of Mormon passages will quote the Savior seemingly using the same linear argument as in The Book of Mormon, but to a different conclusion: (John 3:36)

(If P) He that believeth on the Son, 
(then Q) hath everlasting life:    
(If not P) and he that believeth not the Son
(then not Q) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I understand why some of my fellow Christians would object to the aforecited Book of Mormon passages. This direct quote from Jesus certainly does seem to convey the message that salvation or eternal life is directly dependent upon belief rather than following God's commandments. Notice, however, how this argument and its contraposition are neatly symmetrical with the contrapositive being a direct negative of the positive argument, unlike The Book of Mormon couplet where one proposition in the contrapositive diverged to define its equivalent positive proposition:

+Belief in Son ~ -Belief in Son
+Have Everlasting Life ~ -Have Everlasting Life

Turn and Face the Strange Changes (Just Gonna Have to Be a Different Man)

Allow me now to share with you something that is common knowledge among Biblical scholars. This is something that experts of textual history, textual chronology, and ancient languages know but do not seem to share with others, at least not sufficiently openly, perhaps because they approach scripture as a purely academic discipline rather than as Divine Communication meant actually to bring people to the very Presence of God: In the Greek miniscules denoted f13 (dated from the X-XV centuries AD) this verse, John 3:36, was changed. (See source noted below.) Consequently, from that point on subsequent Greek manuscripts have contained the altered variant of this teaching.

So how did the text read prior, and is this verifiable? Every previous Greek document including the earliest preserved Greek manuscripts of The Gospel According to John are harmonious in their reading of John 3:36 until the change was entered into the textual line in the Greek miniscules denoted f13 (X-XV centuries AD). The original statement of Jesus was not the crisply symmetrical European-esque statement we now have where each positive proposition is mirrored by an exact contrapositive (He that believeth hath eternal life; He that believeth not hath not life). The original statement of Jesus had a divergent proposition in the contrapositive, a divergent proposition that narrowed down or defined its equivalent positive proposition. Here is the unaltered original:

(If P) He that believeth on the Son, 
(then Q) hath everlasting life:    
(If not P) and he that disobeyeth the Son
(then not Q) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Whoa?!! What!!! Jesus had actually taught that he who disobeys The Son of God shall not see life, however, Jesus, utilizing the Semitic model (the very model seen in The Book of Mormon where there is not exact symmetry between both positive and negative arguments, but one negative proposition differs so as to define the previous positive equivalent) actually defined what it means to believe in Him: Belief in Jesus means to keep His commandments.

Now Jesus' departing words to His faithful disciples take on added import: (Matthew 28:19-20)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus' departing instructions to His Apostles were that they teach all nations and baptize them, teaching them to obey all things that He has commanded, and if so, He will always be with us. Now, what at the outset looked like an un-Biblical Book of Mormon-ism, that to be in the Presence of The Lord and ultimately to be saved we must keep the commandments, turns out to be in perfect harmony with what The Bible and Our Lord actually taught.

In case you're wondering, I certainly did, why this precious teaching of Jesus was changed in miniscules f13 (X-XV A.D), I propose the following possible explanation: In A.D. 382 St. Jerome was commissioned by the still fresh (roughly 60 years old) Catholic Church to revise the older Latin translations of portions of scriptures and produce a new and complete Latin translation of the entire Bible (remember The Bible Compilation was roughly only 50 years old at this point). St. Jerome put together the Latin translation of the entire Bible, since called the Vulgate. Either Jerome or a predecessor, both being European, may have cringed at what they saw as the lack of symmetry in Jesus' couplet and sought to "smooth" it out. Thus either Jerome or a predecessor changed "he that disobeyeth the Son" to "he that hath not believed the Son" so that the couplet would read cleanly symmetrical. In the Latin:

(If P) Qui credit in Filium 
(then Q) habet vitam aeternam:    
(If not P) qui autem incredulus est Filio 
(then not Q) non videbit vitam sed ira Dei manet super eum.

(If P) He that believeth in the Son
(then Q) hath eternal life:    
(If not P) and he that hath not believed the Son
(then not Q) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

In St. Jerome's world, where to believe was absolutely to obey, this change of wording must have seemed harmless, and so he opted for the style that produced a cleanly symmetrical couplet as he would have been used to encountering. St. Jerome was, after all, European (nothing against my Euro-brethren and sisters!). Little could he have fathomed the impact that small alteration would have on generations of believers over a millennium and a half later.

The Lord, however, has seen fit to pour our great truths in our day to raise our understanding and confirm the truth that preceded it, namely The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ as a confirmation of The Bible, and The Lord has given other beautiful revelations as well.

Can the reader turn, turn and face the strange changes entered into Holy Writ? By so doing the reader may realize that he is just going to have to be a different man and she a different woman.

God bless all.

P.S. If the reader is unfamiliar with David Bowie's "Changes", click and have a worthwhile listening experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKuL8cyiAA

Source:
New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus, John, Reuben Swanson, Editor, Sheffield Academic Press, William Carey International University Press, 1995.