Understanding the JST as a Separate Work

[David T]

I've been delving into the Old Testament a lot. I've always had a fascination with it, and have always had a knack for detecting patterns and symbols, not always recognizing the significance of them, but simply recognizing they were there. Of recent, I've been reading much more extra-biblical texts, in connection with many of the fascinating ideas of Margaret Barker, as well as other Old Testament scholars.

I've recognized more and more the symbolic, parabolic, and allegorical nature of many of the familiar accounts in the Old Testament (especially the Pentateuch), and found myself realizing that often what the symbols and stories meant to the ancients meant something very different than the way they are currently and presently understood in the 'mainstream'.

In the Restoration, Joseph Smith often re-contextualized ancient texts, in what we know as the Joseph Smith Translation, to present Living Teaching. It's interesting that the most symbolic of the Old Testament texts, Genesis, received the most re-contextualization. If this was meant to be purely a historical text, we would have to look for differences, and assume one was correct, while the other was not.

I think that while they had the same foundational base, it is important to view OT GENESIS as a completely different text than POGP MOSES, and it is a mistake to view the latter as simply a correction of the former.

For example, I am leaning towards a reading of the Genesis Fall Narrative, as presented in our Old Testaments, as, among many things, a symbol of national apostasy, the expulsion from the temple, and the exile. The actions taken are in all ways condemned by God. There follows two lines, that of Cain, and that of Seth. Both their geneologies share the same exact names. One going forth in secular knowledge, the other in sacred. One line (which includes an Enoch) ends in destruction in the Final Judgment, and the other (which includes the Sethian Enoch) is taken away, and protected from the wrath to come. Perhaps the Cain-line is a counterfeit and powerless Priesthood that continues on, while the Sethian line is the True Priesthood, taken from the earth.

And then we have the Joseph Smith Fall Narrative (Moses, Temple) which re-contextualizes and expands the narrative and players into the Personal Plan of Salvation. Adam is everyman. It expresses our personal choice to enter the fallen state, and the promise of Restoration with God. The following narratives are expanded to have more of a spiritual significance (How is Adam redeemed? Through the Atonement of Christ experienced through the ordinances of the Gospel. Why was Cain not excepted? He loved Satan's promises of power more than God. We learn of Enoch's Zion: Heaven on Earth that we should strive to emulate)

It's a different story, for a different people, in a different context. If we are looking only for the underlying Historical Narrative, I think we're missing the mark. We have learned some important things concerning Historical Adam through modern revelation (mainly in the D&C). But I think, to read these scriptures and to try to correlate and harmonize and concatenate them in seeking the Historical Narrative, is truly the essence of having them not 'translated correctly'.

I share a quote fromBYU's study of the Joseph Smith Translation, under the subheader 'types of changes':

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors. Perhaps there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author's original words, or even to remove them from their original context, to reveal teachings needed by the latter-day Church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Bible and the JST, said "both of them are true." He stated that John 1 in the Bible "is true," yet the JST gives it "an entirely new perspective." "These are illustrations of the fact that there can be two translations of the same thing and both of them can be true." There is an important JST change at Romans 13 in which Paul's teaching regarding the Saints' submission to secular political power is changed to submission to the authorities of the Church. Perhaps both versions are correct. If the Bible preserves accurately Paul's original thoughts and intent, then the JST revision would be viewed as a latter-day revelation intended to instruct us on a topic not anticipated by Paul.

Some have dismissed the JST because its changes are not verified in ancient manuscripts. The claim is that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. But this reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that all JST changes are intended to restore original text, a claim made neither by the JST itself nor by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

This is why I believe it's important to study the Ancient Texts in their Ancient Context as being separate works of scripture than the Joseph Smith Translation (which deserves and begs for study in a completely different context). I too, believe as Elder McConkie stated, that they are 'both true'. But it seems based on my communications with many, that this concept is not grasped, or presented clearly in the church curriculum. Thus I find unfortunate (but understandable) that the POGP text of Moses is included in the Old Testament Sunday School and Seminary curriculum as opposed to the Doctrine & Covenants and Church History (even though they are divided in separate Institute Classes)

Any thoughts on this?

[Lightbearer]

This is why I believe it's important to study the Ancient Texts in their Ancient Context as being separate works of scripture than the Joseph Smith Translation (which deserves and begs for study in a completely different context). I too, believe as Elder McConkie stated, that they are 'both true'. But it seems based on my communications with many, that this concept is not grasped, or presented clearly in the church curriculum. Thus I find unfortunate (but understandable) that the POGP text of Moses is included in the Old Testament Sunday School and Seminary curriculum as opposed to the Doctrine & Covenants and Church History (even though they are divided in separate Institute Classes)

Any thoughts on this?

I have always wished that the Church would develop a curriculum to study the Pearl of Great Price in Sunday School, I know that Church Education already has a manual for institute. I suppose the reason is that there are things so deep in there that Sunday School could last three hours itself! Or perhaps they think the material is not enough to fill up an entire year of classes. Or perhaps it would engender too much speculation and or contention in the Church. I think the reason the rest of the JST is used in our study of the Old and New Testaments is I think the Lord wants us to understand them in light of Latter-day revelation that is specific for our day. That is why I think the Lord revealed the following about Joseph Smith:

(D&C 5:10) "But this generation shall have my word through you;"

Prophets have the right to interpret scriptures and expound them beyond what they originally said, Jesus gives that example in the New Testament in His expounding the Old. While other interpretations by scholars may be interesting, I do not believe the Lord wants us taught from "mens wisdom" alone, I think that they want the spirit of revelation to pervade our teaching in the Church. I think that Elder McConkie's idea is correct, but a false interpretation of it could be used to undermine the "orthodox" doctrine of the Church, so I would look to guidance from the First Presidency and the Twelve on this matter, they can clearly "see" much further than I or any other member of this Church. The idea could be presented to the curriculum department, but ultimately I believe that what will be done will be in accord the Lord's will and in His own due time. I find it significant that the entire Church next year will be "going back to basics" so to speak with the new Gospel Principles Manual, perhaps that is a reflection of the Church (as a whole) is drifting from those plain simple truths of the Gospel that often in our search for the deeper mysteries we neglect or overlook in our study. Perhaps the Lord knows that we as a people need to make greater strides in our simple principles of faith, repentance, and enduring in keeping the commandments... I find it odd that when we have a discussion on these basic principles that often in our meetings we get disagreement even on them.

[David T]

I agree with everything you said. I think especially the idea that, "Prophets have the right to interpret scriptures and expound them beyond what they originally said" is, sadly, very misunderstood.

[John Williams]

I've said before that Joseph Smith had a rather fluid view of text. The sacred canon for him seems to have been something to revise and rethink over and over again, depending on the situation. Of course, the push toward correlation and doctrinal orthodoxy flies in the face of his approach. IMHO.

[David T]

It's also interesting when you compare the 'original' text of the Book of Mormon to some of the revisions and emendations Joseph Smith made to it in the Nauvoo Edition. He did to the Book of Mormon text what he'd already been doing with the King James Version of the Bible. You could call it the 'Joseph Smith Translation of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Book of Mormon'

Makes me almost want to see another subtitle added to the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ - Joseph Smith Translation

[CV75]

Thus I find unfortunate (but understandable) that the POGP text of Moses is included in the Old Testament Sunday School and Seminary curriculum as opposed to the Doctrine & Covenants and Church History (even though they are divided in separate Institute Classes)

Any thoughts on this?

I think it is a matter of presenting information in as familiar and basic a format as possible. When the curriculum is developed by the Spirit, taught by the Spirit, and received by the Spirit -- the opposite of what is happening in 2 Nephi 33: 1-2 -- much greater things ("commandments not a few") will be revealed to each individual at their own pace. D&C 50:13-24 and Section 59 speak to this.

[David T]

Here, for example, is how new details in the JST Genesis / Book of Moses antediluvian narratives can be a unique instruction, in types and shadows, pertaining specifically to this dispensation, in 4 specific phases.

Phase 1. The Revelation to Moses, of a work that is specifically claimed to have been lost. The relationship of oneself to God is explained, as well as the opposition of Satan

Phase 2. Next, we have the revised Creation and Fall Narratives, which teaches us of the Plan of Salvation, and the importance of the Family Unit.

Phase 3. Next, we have the Enoch narratives, where, in this JST instance, in the wilderness of apostasy, Enoch is called as shadow of Joseph Smith (Enoch was one of the codewords Joseph often used for himself, as can be found in earlier editions of the Doctrine & Covenants). Enoch receives knowledge from God, and leads those who will hearken into building Zion. In this version, not only is Enoch exalted to the presence of God, but all those who took part in the building of Zion.

Phase 4. The Last Days, where Noah represents a modern Prophet of the Lord, in preparation for the Judgment. Following the Judgment comes the New Creation.

I think it's specifically interesting in contrast to the historical Genesis account, where we have:

1. The expulsion of the Priesthood and the temple in the Fall narrative

2. The Initiated (Enoch) being the only one taken up (perhaps representing Moses)

3. The Flood representing the Exile, with the new creation being fulfilled with the coming of a new dispensation in the Messiah.