I was reviewing a couple different things at the same time, but they all came down to something Christ said in the sermon on the mount as found in Matthew 5:22. The core language is as follows:
The Koine Greek text, according to Westcott and Hort, reads:εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο οργιζομενος τω αδελφω αυτουενοχος εσται τη κρισει ος δ αν ειπη τω αδελφω αυτουρακα ενοχος εσται τω συνεδριω ος δ αν ειπη μωρεενοχος εσται εις την γεενναν του πυρος
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,s hall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shallsay, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The World English Bible translates the passage as: But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca!’shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.
From Wikipedia on Mathew 5:22 — note similar text in the Book of Mormon.
Analysis of the verse includes the following comments.
Early manuscripts are divided between whether this verse should read “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” or “whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.” The two versions are significantly different in implication and most modern scholars feel that “without a cause” was a later addition by a copyist trying to make the statement less radical.[9] This was also the view of some Church Fathers.[10] And, see below, it is the Book of Mormon version.
The word Raca is original to the Greek manuscript; however, it is not a Greek word. The most common view is that it is a reference to the Aramaic word reka, which literally means “empty one”, but probably meant “empty headed,” or “foolish.” Scholars seem divided on how grievous an insult it was. Hill feels it was very,[11] France thinks it was a minor slur.[12] The word translated as fool is the Greek moros, which has a similar meaning to the Aramaic reka. However moros also was used to mean godless, and thus could be much more severe a term than reka.
The Book of Mormon text is:
But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
3 Nephi 12:22
Modern terms of similar input would be “deplorable” or “snowflake.”
Before reading Scott Mitchell and Ben Spackman on this topic I had been thinking of Jordan Harbinger who has had guests speak on his podcast about rescuing others from hate groups. (Strange that the two posters and Jordan Harbinger came together in the things I was thinking about).
If you are interested, here are two of those interviews:
It seems calling people worthless, or fools or being angry with them does not seem to be what worked.
Charity, loving kindness and patience did change hearts and minds while nothing else did.
In other words, acting as Christ told him to act changed hearts and minds.
Thinking about those points when looking at our modern political climate I find that I need to be asking myself: What about Christ? What about the things he said? How can I remember to apply the words of Christ in all areas?
What do you think?
- Should we be kind to those who disagree with us?
- Should we treat those who we feel are blindly following “their side” differently from those who are enlightened enough to agree with “our side” in either politics or religion?
- How often do you need to be reminded of Matthew 5:22 (I feel like I need a good solid reminder at least once a week)?
Wheat & Tares 
The “without a cause” clause tends to act as an exception that swallows the rule. Almost all people who get angry feel they have a legitimate cause. I’m sure you’ve engaged with people whose anger is always righteous anger, but think everyone else is unreasonably angry, no matter the cause. The clause is an invitation to hypocrisy.
Mormons engage in a similar move with “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Instead, Mormons quote “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Because how could one be Mormon without lots of judging, righteous or otherwise?
As for the idea of bringing a little more Christ or a little more Christian virtue into politics — well, we have elected a practicing and believing Catholic and have ejected a delusional sociopathic narcissist from the White House. That’s a good first step. I’d say there is hope on the road ahead. Even more hope if we can get some of his blindly loyal sycophants out of Congress in 2022.
Thank you for a very good and timely reminder 🙂 Appreciate the post.
So, in Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the sermon on the mount, he took “without a cause” out of the version included in the Book of Mormon. I’m not familiar with this. It’s assumed he used or was most familiar with the KJV, correct? Is there a theory of why he decided to omit the phrase? Did the phrase not show up in the rock? Serious question, even if it doesn’t seem so.
I appreciate Dave B’s point criticizing our tendency as a culture to ”judge righteous judgment.” My reply to that, when I am confronted with it, is to say, fine, as long as the righteous judgment is conducted according to the principle underlying Christ’s Parable of the Publican and the Dinner found in the 18th Chapter of Luke.
I’m sorry I was too terse. The better witnesses (the term of art for scriptural sources and traditions) have “without cause” as something added to the text after Christ’s death.
The King James Version has ”That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause” but it appears that was not what Christ said.
I don’t know why it is not in the Book of Mormon but it supports my point in the essay.
I hope that makes sense.
Stephen, I like discussions centered around Christ. I wish there were more. In Utah, most people disagree with me. But that’s no reason we can’t be friendly toward each other. We just need to avoid certain subjects, like politics and religion. And exploit the things we have in common.
Should we be kind to those who disagree? Generally yes. But it depends on the context and the nature of the disagreement. I just recently read a troubling poll that revealed that 40% of Republican voters and 22% of Democratic voters believed violence to be a justifiable response to perceived cultural threats. I can’t defend violent protest and if I had a friend who strongly argued in favor of violence, such as the burning of police precincts to protest the police or the storming of the Capitol to protest the election results, I would probably ostracize that person. People who say over-the-top ridiculous things such as the idea that being a Republican in the US today is like being a Jew during the Holocaust should be reprimanded and be subjected to social punishments. Freedom of speech does not mean and has never meant freedom from rejection, rebuke, ridicule, and private censorship.
Words have consequences. We have to watch what we say. We should avoid extremism in our speech. We should also take a stand for important values. We can’t let ourselves be cowed into submission by loud extremists. We must stand up to them. And if that means sacrificing a relationship, then so be it. Cordial disagreement can really only be had when two disagreeing sides have a larger foundation of agreement. For instance, I can disagree cordially with someone who voted for Trump because they thought he was somehow the better choice but accepts the results of the election. I cannot have a cordial disagreement with someone who voted for Trump but says that the election was rigged and that the insurrectionists were really patriots standing up for what is right and that QAnon is all real. Extremes and extremists must be pushed back to the margins. There is no valid conversation to be had with them.
My name means peacemaker, and I have tried to live up to it. Part of the problem I see is making language more extreme, and emotive. I see it coming from the right. A person who believes in abortion becomes a baby killer. Democrats are communists.
In this time of the right believing lies, this means people are scared that America will become a communist state, and the government will be coming to kill your babies.
I do not know how to communicate with this kind of willfull ignorance, and hate, except to ask them what they mean, and try to explain that that will not happen.
This is a particularly American thing caused by trump undermining the media, and institutions. There are people who believe this in Aus, but they are getting it from US sites.
Conservative media has been undermining mainstream media since long before President Trump’s election. I read that the idea for their own media was sparked during President Nixon’s impeachment hearings.
Just to keep the record straight.
It’s easy to blame the polarizing rhetoric on Trump, but that just dodges accountability.
By the way, I wondered if you noticed something novel about that Book of Mormon counterpart to Matt. 5:22. (3 Ne. 12:22) that you quoted above. Not only does the BoM omit the phrase “without a cause,” as the early Biblical manuscripts do, it also changes the “the” to a “his,”, so that the phrase reads that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of HIS (i.e., the brother’s) judgment. This changes the meaning significantly, perhaps putting in context the phrase, “thy brother hath aught against thee” found in the following verse. And I love this new interpretation. I hadn’t noticed the “his” before you quoted the Book or Mormon counterpart. Did you see that? I so appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
I ought to explain that because a fair number of my FB friends are non-Mormons who don’t have a burning testimony of the Book of Mormon, I try to be judicious and not quote the Book of Mormon that lead them to believe I’m trying to proselyte them, if I have equivalent biblical verses to work with. But when the Book of Mormon says something the Bible doesn’t say, and is particularly enlightening, I quote it in hopes of spurring interest in the text for all readers, Mormon or not. And this is one of those times when the Book of Mormon has something to say that everyone needs to consider. I’ve decided I’m going to write about this verse a little bit more. It’s a pearl.
The new interpretation, as I read it, is that if you’re angry with your brother, be sure that your anger is righteously based, because if it’s not, your brother will have aught against you, and that “aught” will be that your anger with him (or her, of course) was not righteously borne. That’s why Jesus says we’ll be “in danger of” his judgement. The danger accompanies anger because of our tendency to not carefully consider the mote in our own eye. If we do consider it, and our motives are righteously borne, we’ll be protected from the danger. But danger will always loom over anger at one’s brother because of our human tendencies.
jaredsbrother,
Many of the changes Joseph Smith made to the bible were the same as those found in Adam Clark’s Commentary, which he would have had access to. Regarding Matt. 5:22:
Verse 22
Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause – ὁ οργιζομενος – εικη, who is vainly incensed. “This translation is literal; and the very objectionable phrase, without a cause, is left out, εικη being more properly translated by that above.”
Taiwan Missionary,
I’ve scoured the 18th Chapter of Luke for Christ’s Parable of the Publican and the Dinner you refer to – alas, I’m not seeing anything resembling it there. What am I missing?
Jared‘s Other Brothet:
Sorry; fat-fingered my typing and didn’t proofread my original comment.
Luke 18: 9-14, the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, or tax collector. The point of it is a warning against assuming that because one observes the external commandments, that one is more righteous than people with obvious faults—in this case, a tax collector reviled by the public as a stooge of the hated Roman Empire and a social outcast.
Thanks for giving me a chance to clean up my comment.
Mark,
You may be interested in Kent Jackson’s fairly exhaustive look at the Clarke commentary theory here:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/
Taiwan Missionary,
Thanks for the clarification! I’m slow, but now I get it. I found it a useful insight