Lehi’s argument for the existence of God

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13)

I think it is interesting how Lehi argues for the existence of God with a series of negated circumstances. “Take away this, and you don’t have this other thing, which removes this other thing.”

I’m going to go through his reasons with the positive side, because there is at least one step that I’ve had troubles with that required me to fill a wider gap and follow Lehi’s reasoning. 

Looking at the beginning and the end points, Lehi argues that the existence of a law (by which I think he means moral law) leads him to believe in a God.

If there is a law, then there is righteousness and sin. Some will follow the law, and some don’t.

If there are some that follow the law, then there must also be some that have mastered the law, who keep it in every particular and use it to benefit others. These must be what we would call God(s).

Also, if there be righteousness and sin, then there must also be consequences—reward and punishment. Otherwise there is no significance and meaning to either righteousness or sin.

If there is a Master of the law, then it would make sense for the Master to have a hand in reward and punishment. (In fact, we require our earthly dispensers of justice to be as morally upright as possible, and we are terribly annoyed and distrustful when they are not.)

Then there is a bit of a leap between laws with consequences and the creation. If there’s no righteousness or sin, then there is no God. Stated slightly differently and adding steps, If there is no law to master, then there is no Master of it, thus no God.  If God is not, then we and the earth are not.  So it implies there is a link between moral mastery and the powers of creation. One who keeps the moral laws will certainly find out and follow all the laws of the elements and material existence and follow these too, prolifically creating new things to benefit others, and perhaps being so clever as to streamline things such that creations create more of themselves.

The practical side of this is that laws exist, and we can either find out what they are through trial and error, or we can learn from the Master and make faster progress.  If we learn quickly and follow, we are promised righteousness and happiness proportional to our obedience.  Moral laws have been given to us, and we have the opportunity of learning about the laws of nature through experimentation. 

Probably this line of reasoning would not satisfy relativists. People versed in philosophy might have troubles with definitions and say this is all intuiting too far, but to me Lehi’s argument is satisfying.  In an extremely brief way, it points out our conscience is one of the best indicators that there is a God. I think C.S. Lewis gave  a more extended version of a similar line of reasoning in his book “Mere Christianity” that is also worth reading.

Three Different Ways King Mosiah was Righteous

And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him. (Mosiah 6:6)

Somehow this verse caught my eye.  It seems to say three different times that Mosiah was a good man and a good king, but with different wording.  This made me wonder if it simply said it three times or if it was describing different aspects of his righteousness.    (Aha, analysis is called for!)

“king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord” – This uses the metaphor of righteousness as a path.  King Mosiah had to know that path—what the Lord’s ways were—in order to walk in it.  He probably asked himself the question, “What would the Lord do?” when faced with something tricky.   Is walking in the Lord’s ways accidental?  No, it has to be deliberate. It has to be learned and practiced.

"[Mosiah] did observe his [the Lord’s] judgments and his statutes" – The word observe has a number of meanings that help us here. 4 of 9 possible definitions are the following:

--show respect towards

--behave as expected during holidays or rites

--stick to correctly or closely

--conform one’s action or practice to

Another interesting thing is that the words “judgments” and “statues” imply the existence of certain things.  Observing judgments in once sense implies noticing the judgments of God at work and pointing out how natural consequences fit with the Lord’s commandments. Or, it might imply sticking with the precedents formed by a body of case law. Observing statutes implies keeping to smaller facilitating laws.

“[Mosiah] did keep his [the Lord’s] commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him” – This shows us Mosiah received personal revelation and followed it. We get the account of several instances of his doing this. 1) translating the 24 plates Limhi’s people brought with them, and 2) receiving revelation that he should let his four reconverted sons go preach to the Lamanites. Changing the Nephite government from monarchy to a judge-ruled government may have been part of this, but that is only speculation.

So, having examined these things more closely, we see that those three phrases about Mosiah’s righteousness describe different aspects.  It may strike you as it has struck me that they aren’t only for kings.  We also can walk in the ways of the Lord, observe His statutes and judgments in our stewardships, and keep the Lord’s commandments in all things He commands us.    What a heaven this world would be if we all did that.

Paul about the change of being born again

I really like the JST for Romans 7:15-27.

15  But now I am spiritual; for that which I am commanded to do, I do; and that which I am commanded not to allow, I allow not.
16  For what I know is not right, I would not do; for that which is sin, I hate.
17  If then I do not that which I would not allow, I consent unto the law, that it is good; and I am not condemned.
18  Now then, it is no more I that do sin; but I seek to subdue that sin which dwelleth in me.

This is really comforting, especially when we find ourselves getting discouraged in our fight against sin. We may say to ourselves, Because I am having such a hard time with this, I must not be a good person. I must not be really converted. 

The truth is, the fact that we want to escape the sin or the bad habit shows that we are converted and changed because we are working so hard to stop. We are trying to subdue the sin in the flesh.

19  For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not, only in Christ.

You have to give Paul credit for complete honesty when he says that in his flesh dwelleth no good thing. 

About the only good thing we can do is will or desire what is good. Our body is so fallen that it requires grace from Christ to subject it to perform the good works we want to do.  (And when the D&C 84 promises sanctification and renewing of the body, that is also a great encouragement.)

20  For the good that I would have done when under the law, I find not to be good; therefore, I do it not.
21  But the evil which I would not do under the law, I find to be good; that, I do.

So when we are born again, our very perception of what is good or pleasurable changes. The things we thought were attractive before, we discover they are evil or vain or foolish. The things we didn’t care about or were not interested in before, we discover are beautiful and good.

I remember talking to a new convert a few years ago and he told me he had noticed after his baptism that movies he’d previously thought were okay to watch were starting to bother him. I was able to tell him that this was part of the conversion process and the Holy Ghost was changing him. I told him he’d have to be choosier with his media and the important thing was to do what he could to keep the Holy Ghost with him.

22  Now if I do that, through the assistance of Christ, I would not do under the law, I am not under the law; and it is no more that I seek to do wrong, but to subdue sin that dwelleth in me.

The law just tells you the difference between good and bad; it doesn’t actually give you the power to do good. So if you are able to do good with the grace of Christ when you couldn’t do it before with just knowing the law, you don’t have to worry about being condemned by the law.  And if you are able to do good, then you wouldn’t seek evil and spoil it all.  So any sin you fight isn’t really you; the fight is part of subduing the flesh.  But if we choose sin deliberately, then that is rebellion.

23  I find then that under the law, that when I would do good evil was present with me; for I delight in the law of God after the inward man.

Paul noticed that when he wanted to do good, he still had something in him that tried to hold him back, something he had to fight.  The converted person delights in the law of God, even if they still have to work to subdue sin in the flesh. 

24  And now I see another law, even the commandment of Christ, and it is imprinted in my mind.
25  But my members are warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
26  And if I subdue not the sin which is in me, but with the flesh serve the law of sin; O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

If we’ve been converted but we don’t subdue the sin in our bodies, that makes us truly miserable because it seems like we’re stuck doing things we hate and know are wrong. It’s slavery to the body. We need Christ’s help to subdue that sin.

27  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, then, that so with the mind I myself serve the law of God.

Even if it might be hard to serve God in our bodies, at least our converted mind wants to easily.  This is where following Christ becomes a real discipline.

The Israelites' Deeper Problem with Wanting a King

When the Israelites come to Samuel asking for a king and a displeased Samuel prays for direction, the Lord says some interesting things that indicate Israel has a deeper problem.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. (1 Samuel 8:7-8)

If you remember, the people used as a cover the excuse that Samuel’s sons were perverting judgment, but Samuel had not stepped down as judge and he could deal with his sons, and in that respect the current system was not faulty enough to require a change. 

Rather, this was a case where the system was working well and the people didn’t like it because it was working.  They had to really watch their Ps and Qs and it was strenuous.  Living the Law of Moses carefully made them more conscious of their fallen nature and need for a Redeemer and they didn’t like that.

I like that the Lord shows Samuel that it is not Samuel that was rejected, but the Lord Himself.  Again, Samuel was the judge, but he wasn’t laying down his own law; he was following God’s law in the Law of Moses, and if they didn’t like that, then they didn’t like God’s law and they didn’t like having God rule over them.

Also, the Lord shows Samuel that this rejection was nothing new, but it was of a piece with all the rebellions the Israelites had done against God ever since they had been brought out of Egypt—the times they had murmured over food, the times some parties aspired to the higher priesthood and leadership, the time they had refused to go up to conquer the land and then when told not to go up, they decided to go up anyway, the time they had made a golden calf instead of waiting for Moses, and all the times they had forsaken God and worshipped Baal.   Their problem is sin, and changing government systems is not going to address that.  What they need is a national call to repentance (and they get it in 1 Samuel 12).

One of the things this teaches me is that things are no different today and I am no better.  I tend to wander and I have to repent.  If I don’t listen to the counsel of my church leaders, I’m just like those people who wanted a king.  Trying to avoid keeping commandments is outright rejection of God as ruler over me.  If I don’t follow God, I’m following something else and making that thing or person my god.

Yes, following the Lord requires discipleship and sacrifice day after day.  It’s a struggle.  Seeking to subdue the sin that dwells in the flesh is a struggle.  But it is cool to me that effort doesn’t just show my allegiance to the Lord but it also is meant to help me become like Him in grace-filled increments.

It's also a good message for around election time.  New leaders aren't going to help if the same old nation-wide sins continue.  Only nation-wide repentance will bring real change.

There’s something else I notice in what the Lord says to Samuel.  I notice that the Lord is willing to take from Samuel that feeling of being rejected and take it upon Himself.  Feeling rejected is not pleasant.  It hurts.  It touches me that this story has a type of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and sufferings here, even to cover the hurt of rejection.  That means that anytime we are in a leadership position and our righteous direction is ignored or our counsel is rejected, we can turn to the Lord for comfort.

What can Baptism Metaphors Teach Us?

I taught a Relief Society lesson last Sunday about Baptism from the Joseph Fielding Smith manual and in the process of preparing, I noticed that there are a lot of metaphors used in the scriptures to describe baptism and what it does for us and what it means for us. 

I decided I wanted to collect them together to see what I could learn from them.  And it was neat enough that I wanted to share what I found. (I didn't have time to share these in my lesson, so this is bonus material!)

The straitness of the path (2 Nephi 31:9)  Strait does not mean not crooked here.  It is another word for narrow.  Drawing attention to the narrowness emphasizes that a correct baptism has be done in a certain way otherwise it isn’t valid or efficacious.  A path implies steps we have to take and if you learn about the requirements of baptism, you learn there really are steps (see D&C 20:37). These same steps are also applicable to preparing to take the sacrament, so it’s not like we leave this path once we’ve been baptized.

Narrowness of the gate by which they should enter (2 Nephi 31:9) – Baptism is called a gateway we should enter.  This implies it is an entrance into something.  Entrance is required, so everyone needs to be searching for this gate.  Using a gate implies that it is an entrance into a place with walls where we could otherwise not get in.  This makes me think that the gate is to the kingdom of God and we might surmise that there is no other way in besides this one.  Again, narrowness implies the specificity of baptism and the way it is done and by whom. 

A witness and a testimony (Mosiah 21:35) – This makes me think of court witness and certifying to the truth of something.  Baptism is a way that we testify to the truth of our repentance and that we have covenanted to serve the Lord.    Witness also communicates how baptism demonstrates an inner state by an outer act.  I suppose that is part of bringing the body into subjection to the spirit.

Wash away thy sins (Acts 22:16) – This gives us the sense that after baptism the dirty past that has clung to us is gone.

Washed their garments in my [Jesus’] blood (3 Ne. 27:19), cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten (Moses 6:59) – This gives us additional symbolism of the baptismal act.  The water we are immersed in symbolizes being washed in the blood of Christ.  (Being dunked in blood is kind of a disturbing image, so I’m glad we don’t do that literally…)  Just like it would be a miracle if anything washed in blood were to come out clean, it is similarly a miracle that we are cleansed by Christ’s vicarious sacrifice.   The idea of being washed and cleansed by Christ’s blood also communicates how Christ’s sacrifice sanctifies us in baptism.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (Col. 2:14) – This one takes a bit of effort to unpack.  “ordinances that was against us” refers to the law of Moses and it means all the laws of God we’ve broken.  It’s our rap sheet, all the things we’ve done wrong.  “Blotting out the handwriting” refers to how people would erase writing on parchment or leather scrolls in an age without erasers.  They would sponge the writing with a damp or wet rag until the ink had been moistened and drawn up and out.   

So, this communicates that baptism is a wholesale erasure of the big list of our offenses on our official record, and the result is we don’t have to live in fear of judgment any more.  When a rap sheet is erased, we can walk free and not worry that we’ll be dragged to court at any moment.    Likewise, after baptism, all the list of things we’ve done wrong is erased and we don’t have to live in fear of dying and being suddenly brought to the judgment bar of God.

For the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) – Remission is an odd word.  It’s hard to get your mind around it unless you start thinking about it in medical terms.  If cancer goes into remission, then that means there is an absence of disease activity in the body.  So maybe we can think of remission of sins as an absence of sin activity in the body.  I’ve read that cancer isn’t cured unless it has been in remission long enough.  There is still potential for relapse.  Likewise, we aren’t cured of sin until we’ve been in remission long enough.  There is still the potential for relapse there too.   Remission also is used to convey the sense of cancelling a debt or a penalty. 

Our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed (Romans 6:6) – Crucifixion is torture.  When we begin to repent, that is torture to the natural man.  The repentance process tortures the natural man to death and destroys it, with baptism giving the coup de grace. 

Buried with him [Christ] by baptism into death (Romans 6:4, Mosiah 18:14) – This teaches us that the old natural man is meant to die and be buried during baptism.  Baptism is a likeness of the grave.  From this metaphor I get the idea that the sinful life is not prolonged, but ended, and the visible remains are placed where it will not be seen again. 

Planted together in the likeness of his death (Romans 6:5) – Paul noted that a seed can’t grow unless it dies first and is buried.  The death of the natural man in baptism is compared to a seed that is planted and then yields something much different and much better, something that sprouts and grows!  

Fruits meet for repentance (Matt 3:7-8) – Baptism is compared to fruit.  Fruit is the thing we all want from a fruit tree and we see that fruit trees go through a process before fruit ripens on them.  Fruit trees bud and flower and fruit.  That fruiting process teaches us there is a process to repentance that is meant to end with baptism. 

Born again  (John 3:3, Mosiah 27:25) -- This gives us a sense that baptism is starting over.  We get to have innocence back again without losing the knowledge we’ve gained so far.  We become a different person. 

Enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5) – This helps us think of baptism in terms of becoming a citizen in a different country.  You take an oath of loyalty and service to the king, who is Christ.  You will be a participating citizen and help build the kingdom.  You will help defend the kingdom if called upon. 

Translated in the kingdom (Colossians 1:13) – This one is unexpected and very much overlooked.  Translated evokes the idea of changing between two different languages.  We are changed and transformed into something different. 

come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism (1 Nephi 20:1) – This is Nephi quoting Isaiah and Joseph Smith inserted that “out of the waters of baptism” as prophetic commentary.   “Out of the waters of Judah” is a strange phrase for baptism, but if we remember that baptism is meant to adopt an individual into the house of Israel, we have our first clue.  The second clue is that by the time Isaiah wrote this, the northern tribes of Israel had gone apostate after idolatry, so efficacious baptism could only be found in Judah.   Today because of the restored gospel, we can speak again of baptism as coming forth out of the waters of Israel.  This conveys how baptism is an adoption into the house of Israel and joining a group who enjoy great spiritual privileges and responsibilities.

As you can see, each of these baptism metaphors teaches something special about baptism—what it does for us, how our status changes, how we prepare for it, the importance of how it is done and how that relates to its efficacy, how it relates to the atonement of Christ, how it is an ending and a beginning all at once.

Baptism is a true principle and is necessary for entering into the kingdom of God.  These metaphors are meant to persuade us to toward repentance so that we bring forth those fruits, and they are also meant to remind us of the privileges we have received as members of the kingdom of God and to remind us of our covenants.   I’m glad the prophets and apostles worked so hard to think of these metaphors to share these truths so succinctly and powerfully.

The Powers that Be

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power in the church but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (Romans 13:1-2, JST included)

It is likely that this scripture without the JST was often used to support the theory of the divine right of kings.  With the addition of the JST, it is clear that a government or ruler can’t argue legitimacy solely from possession of power.

In the church, however, with calling by revelation and priesthood authority, power comes from God, and you can’t resist without causing real damage to your soul. 

One phrase might be puzzling here.  “Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”  Is Paul taking about ordinances in the sense of baptism and confirmation?  I don’t think so.  I think he is using the word ordinances in the sense of laws.  So it would make more sense if it read “Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the law of God.”

I think these verses couldn’t be plainer about the consequences of rebellion in the church.  I’m also very grateful for Joseph Smith’s revelation in D&C 121 about how priesthood holders must avoid unrighteous dominion and maintain their influence through persuasion, long-suffering, kindness, gentleness, etc.  That principle perfectly meshes with this one, as one gives the responsibility of members to be subject and the other gives the responsibility of leaders to not tyrannize.

I had a sad experience with resisting a priesthood file leader.  It sent me into a spiritual tailspin.  Finally submitting to counsel helped me realize where my error was.  (Notice the order there.  I first had to submit to counsel.  While obeying I realized where my error was.  Submitting was an act of faith that the Lord rewarded with enlightenment.)

I am forever grateful to the powers that be that uphold the commandments.

The Inexorability of the Law

-->

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:17)

When I was reading this recently it made me ask myself what law this is that Jesus refers to which doesn’t fail?  I think He means the moral law of justice, many of whose precepts were captured in the Law of Moses.  There are certain consequences named in it, some of which are prescribed social responses to certain evils, some of which are natural consequences.  I suspect that Jesus was trying to teach how absolutely inexorable justice was, with its natural and spiritual consequences, so much so that the natural world would dissolve before the law did.

Occasionally society gets corrupt enough that social consequences of evil are done away, but that doesn’t mean that natural consequences can be done away, and the more humanity tries to fight the natural consequences, the closer they get to destroying themselves.

The commandments of God are not just the way to become like God, they are an optimized way of living such that in the long run of eternity consequences will work for you, rather than against you.  They are the “house advantage” for eternal life.

From time to time it may seem as though societal consequences in favor of evil are trumping the natural consequences against evil, but evil’s half life is short.  Maybe not as short as we could wish, but a few generations (and maybe less) will bear out the truth of the matter.

Daily Performances as a Type of Things to Come, Mosiah 13:30-31

As Abinadi preaches to King Noah and his priests about the purpose of the Law of Moses, he says something that caught my eye recently.

29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come. (Mosiah 13:30-31)

Abinadi asserts that the daily performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses were all types meant to prophesy of the future.  I looked down at the footnotes here and it pointed to the Topical Guide entry “Christ, Types of, in Anticipation; Symbolism,” so I suppose that at some level, all the little rules were meant to teach about Christ.  I wonder if anyone has studied how all those things related to Christ?*

In a way, even daily performances themselves were a type of Christ and how He would be perfectly faithful every day.  If the people messed something up, it could remind them of their need for a Savior and the repentance made possible by Him.

These days, the weekly sacrament instructs us to always remember Christ and keep His commandments.  Perhaps the daily performances of the Law of Moses were a kind of all-encompassing sacrament to remind the people of Christ.  And maybe it was a type that prophesied of a future Millennial day and a refined Christ-like people who would no longer be stiff-necked but would keep the commandments constantly on their own and always remember Christ and His sacrifice.

Today let’s think about every duty we do in terms of how it might remind us of Christ and His sacrifice.

* There’s a Sperry Symposium book that has a nice chapter called “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ” that explains some of the ways symbolic aspects of the Law of Moses relate to Christ.

Also, I ran into an excellent online book called The Shadowof Christ in the Law of Moses which explains ways that the Law of Moses typifies Christ.  Members will be probably be familiar with symbolism of the temple, sacrifices, priesthood, and such, but its discussion on the justice aspects of the law deserves special attention for its excellent analysis of how factors of restitution and punishment in the law were designed to teach about holiness.  While written by a non-member, I think it well worth the time.

The Nephite law for unpaid debts

 Now if a man owed another, and he would not pay that which he did owe, he was complained of to the judge; and the judge executed authority, and sent forth officers that the man should be brought before him; and he judged the man according to the law and the evidences which were brought against him, and thus the man was compelled to pay that which he owed, or be stripped, or be cast out from among the people as a thief and a robber. (Alma 11:2)

Here we have a list of possible judgments for those who don’t pay their debts. 

1.     Those who have the means to pay can be compelled to pay what was owed.

2.     Those who don’t have liquid funds but do have tangible property that can go for the debt can be stripped of their possessions, probably to be sold to pay the debt.

3.     Those who have neither funds nor tangible property sufficient to cover the debt can be cast out from the people as a thief and a robber.

We might ask ourselves, why were those who had nothing to pay cast out?  It seems like a pretty tough judgment.  Well, you have to have someway of maintaining trust between people.  In a small community, people know who is trustworthy or not.  If the community is too large or people are moving in and out too quickly to get to know how trustworthy they are, it becomes very difficult to know who you can trust to repay debts and who you can’t.  (With our modern technology, we have credit ratings agencies now who do a lot of the work of tracking who pays and who doesn’t.)  If the number of people you can’t trust in a community becomes too great, then the burden of securing your goods becomes too great and real business and production suffers.  So, to minimize that burden, the untrustworthy people are expelled.

The next question we might ask is why the labels of “thief and robber”?   Would not one suffice?  It so happens that “thief” is different from “robber,” and a recalcitrant debtor shares characteristics of both.  A thief is one who steals without you knowing it and you find out later.  A robber is one who brazenly takes things from you to your face.   The dishonest debtor takes your money to your face (promising to pay but not intending to do so) and you find out later that their repayment of your money is missing.

I could make some comments about what our society might look like if Nephite laws were followed in our country, but it seems to me there is another lesson to take from it that is more personal.  That lesson comes as we realize that each of us is in debt to God.  We have incurred large debts because of our sins and those debts must be paid.  No tangible property can pay this debt because all we have belongs to God anyway.   Without Christ, each of the above penalties will be ours—we will be forced to pay our own debt, we will be stripped, and we will be cast out from the presence of God.   

Or we can reach out to our Savior and Mediator Jesus Christ to pay the debt for us and repent.  

Jesus’ reasons for washing his disciples feet: KJV versus JST

I found the account in John of Jesus washing the disciples feet to have some interesting features in the JST as compared to the KJV.

KJV:

4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

 6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.  (John 13:4-10)

JST:

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou needest not to wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

 10 Jesus saith to him, He that has washed his hands and his head, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. Now this was the custom of the Jews under their law; wherefore, Jesus did this that the law might be fulfilled.  (JST John 13:8-10)

In the KJV, Peter seems extra stubborn and uncharacteristically rebellious, saying,” Thou shalt never wash my feet.”  His tone is more like what we would imagine Judas Iscariot having.  But the JST substantially softens Peter’s words, showing us that he may have been more concerned about the utility of the act.  Perhaps Peter’s feet had already been washed and a second washing seemed superfluous. 

Also, in the KJV, Jesus’s words, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” seem petulant, but with Peter’s words moderated, Jesus’s words, though unchanged, seem more explanatory about how the washing brings them together in unity.  If not washing Peter’s feet means Peter has no part with Christ, then washing Peter’s feet means Peter does have part with Christ. (Part with Christ in what manner?)

In the KJV, Jesus says “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit..”  in the JST, however, Jesus says, “He that has washed his hands and his head, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit..”  This is interesting; first Peter thinks his feet are already washed and then Jesus insists they aren’t, and when Peter thinks his hands and head need washing, Jesus says they are already washed.  This is a good indication that Jesus is speaking symbolically instead of literally.  I think perhaps having head and hands clean symbolized pure thoughts and pure works, and washing one’s feet symbolized pure direction and goals, corresponding to the Lord's work to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. 

It must have been comforting to hear Jesus say, “ye are clean, but not all,” about Peter’s progress to that point.  He was clean but not perfect.  I suppose that when we are trying to live the gospel, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins, that would be Jesus’s message to us too.  It would lift our sights higher and build desire in us to be further purified.

The JST also tells us that the washing of the feet was a requirement of Jewish law and that Jesus was fulfilling that law.  This made me curious, and I looked up on the internet to see what the feet washing requirements were in the Jewish law, but I didn’t find anything that required it in conjunction with the Passover.  However, I read in the Jewish Encyclopedia on washing that feet washing was part of more extensive cleansing requirements of the high priests to perform after sending off the scapegoat, and the same extensive cleansing (including feet washing) was required of the one who was to lead away the scapegoat.   It is possible that Jesus was cleansing the disciples in the context of the Day of Atonement, in anticipation of being led away by one a disciple who would betray him to be crucified.   Also, washing of hands and feet were to be done by those who wished to perform priestly duties, or washing of feet might be a simple gesture according to the law of hospitality to travelers.   Whatever it means, it seems the Joseph Smith Translation restored knowledge of yet another way Jesus fulfilled the law during his mortal ministry, even if we don’t have knowledge of what exactly that law was.  While we perhaps don’t need to know what that law was, our dispensation receives greater benefit from the instructions Jesus gave to cleanse the head, hands, and feet (thoughts, deeds, and goals) so that we can have part with Him.