Matthew 7:1 JST and 3 Nephi 14:1

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

when you read scripture, one is convicted of it's truth. Scripture is a double edged sword, we read in scripture. It is a living word that convicts one of his sin and turns him to Jesus. We believe in scripture because it is self evidently true. by its very nature it is God-breathed. It is God speaking to us.

This is nonsense. This is what the Koran teaches that you know it is true because it is true. Why not just take the leap and say you know the bible is true because the spirit wittnesses it's truth to you?

you may say the same for the BoM.... but that comes from you wanting it to be true.

Lol. This is the funniest thing I have heard in a while. I actually did not want the BoM to be true. It would be much much easier to not be LDS. I could just join in one of the hundreds of other Christian religons and be saved with out having to do anything but believe.

That is why the BoM explicitly asks you the pray about its truthfullness. that is because, unlike the Bible, it is not self-evidently true.

I have news for your, the bible is not self-evidently true. In fact if I were to leave mormonism it would be because of the gross errors that are found in it's pages.

it's a record that came forth out of the blue about a people no one had ever heard of, with copious plagiarisms.

You do know what a plagairism don't you?

from the Bible itself and probably also from other sources as Jockers and others have found. It is not self-evidently correct, therefore one must convince himself of its truthfullness under the guise of divine revelation.

Oh brother that Jockers reports is a total waste.

Did you know that only way to know that Jesus is the Christ is through revelation? Sorry but that is not self-evident.

[Vance]

But i know a transparent charlatan when I see one and Joseph is he. And I don't think the answers to the above question is to follow some self proclaimed prophet on the basis of a subjective, possibly coerced testimony.

Wow! More hysteria.

canterdogs, you need to stop and take a breath, because you are falling apart here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As for people who lose their faith or have faith in other scriptures, i cannot give an explanation for this.

But i know a transparent charlatan when I see one and Joseph is he. And I don't think the answers to the above question is to follow some self proclaimed prophet on the basis of a subjective, possibly coerced testimony.

You have yet to even remotley prove that JS was a "transparent charlatan".

[The_Monk]

Everything is very black-and-white for you, very obvious.

But i know a transparent charlatan when I see one

Indeed. So did the Corinthians. To them, Paul was transparently a charlatan, who was after their money. (Check out the NT lectures by Luke Timothy Johnson, a very believing NT professor at Emory, via the Teaching Company, among others.)

Paul defends himself against this charge in Corinthians, but he DOES have to do so! It was plainly obvious and transparent to the Corinthians that Paul was after their money and nothing more.

[canterdogs]

You have yet to even remotley prove that JS was a "transparent charlatan".

i don't know.... glass looker, reading the BoM out of a hat, Book of Abraham fiasco, failed bank, polygamy, burning a printing press, character assassination of his opponents, emerging science that strongly indicates that the BoM is not consistent with history... old topics I know, but good ones and ample evidence who he actually was.

[Vance]

The Apostle Paul didn't share that notion.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

He also taught,

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man

[The_Monk]

emerging science that strongly indicates that the BoM is not consistent with history...

Again, this is not the kind of thing you want to throw against the BoM if you believe the Bible is self-evidently true.

Should we talk about complex historiography? Chronicles and its revisionism of David and Solomon? The FOUR gospels? Paul's three inconsistent accounts of his conversion experience?

Or should we talk about the Exodus?

Again, you're being really really simplistic here.

[canterdogs]

Again, this is not the kind of thing you want to throw against the BoM if you believe the Bible is self-evidently true.

Should we talk about complex historiography? Chronicles and its revisionism of David and Solomon? The FOUR gospels? Paul's three inconsistent accounts of his conversion experience?

Or should we talk about the Exodus?

Again, you're being really really simplistic here.

Yes I am being rather simplistic. I readily admit this. I know there are probs with the Bible also.... but there is no comparison with the BoM - none whatsoever. Even the FARMS guys say that the Bible has great "advantages" over the BoM with regards to be able to verify its historicity.

The response from latter day saints to the historical probs with the BoM always seems to point to the flaws in the Bible. a completely unchivalrous approach. "If we're going down, we're gonna take everyone else with us!"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

i don't know.... glass looker, reading the BoM out of a hat, Book of Abraham fiasco, failed bank, polygamy, burning a printing press, character assassination of his opponents, emerging science that strongly indicates that the BoM is not consistent with history... old topics I know, but good ones and ample evidence who he actually was.

Ha,

The BoA is not a fiasco. Naked assertions are so easy to make.

A failed bank has nothing to do with your claim neither does polygamy.

Who did JS character assassinate? And science has done no such thing. Care to try again. So far you have not offered anything new or substiancial. Just a bunch of naked assertions.

Do you care to try more in depth?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes I am being rather simplistic. I readily admit this. I know there are probs with the Bible also.... but there is no comparison with the BoM - none whatsoever. Even the FARMS guys say that the Bible has great "advantages" over the BoM with regards to be able to verify its historicity.

You are just being silly. Yes the bible has advatages in history only. That does not go very far to make the claim that the bible is self evidently true.

The response from latter day saints to the historical probs with the BoM always seems to point to the flaws in the Bible. a completely unchivalrous approach. "If we're going down, we're gonna take everyone else with us!"

Nonsense, what we are doing is pointing out your double standard. Which people in that past cannot take and I am willing to bet you cannot take either. Hence you dodged the Monks post.

[canterdogs]

Ha,

The BoA is not a fiasco. Naked assertions are so easy to make.

A failed bank has nothing to do with your claim neither does polygamy.

Who did JS character assassinate? And science has done no such thing. Care to try again. So far you have not offered anything new or substiancial. Just a bunch of naked assertions.

Do you care to try more in depth?

Likewise, you show naked faith in your apologists. Faith that not even your apostles and leaders have displayed.

Who did he character assassinate? try a Martha Brotherton, who refused to become a plural wife of Brigham Young. But of course there's an apologetic response to this.... anything we critics bring up, there seems to be an apologetic response and the critics are always wrong and there isn't anything bad about the church and its history etc.... and you call me an absolutist?!!!

My claim was that he was a charlatan. These examples more than make this case.

[The_Monk]

You haven't made a case, nor any arguments. You've shouted "polygamy!" and a few other things, lumped yourself in with the critics "we critics."

You've been accused of applying a serious double-standard in your judgments, and admit to simplistic analysis.

In responding to me, you've essentially said, "yeah but... Joseph Smith was bad! And you're all just blind faith apologists!"

[Vance]

canterdogs,

You have been reduced to making ad hominem attacks.

So basically, rather than making your case or conceding you have decided to use personal attacks.

Have you tried this strategy before?

Did it work for you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Likewise, you show naked faith in your apologists. Faith that not even your apostles and leaders have displayed.

Who did he character assassinate? try a Martha Brotherton, who refused to become a plural wife of Brigham Young. But of course there's an apologetic response to this.... anything we critics bring up, there seems to be an apologetic response and the critics are always wrong and there isn't anything bad about the church and its history etc.... and you call me an absolutist?!!!

My claim was that he was a charlatan. These examples more than make this case.

Bwhahahaha, Well if that is the best you got then I am in good company here. You really think any one is going to leave the church on your naked assertions?

JS is a bad guy, we should all leave the church guys?

[Brian]

Getting back to the original topic of discussion here...

I appreciate those who have addressed my question in the opening post. For many years I had believed that the JST was intended to be solely a restoration of the Bible's original wording; I did not realize that it also included doctrinal revisions which were in there to explain or clarify things, and which were not supposed to be considered part of the original text. However, I feel my ignorance is somewhat justified because official church publications don't seem to go into much detail describing the content of the Joseph Smith Translation:

According to http://scriptures.ld...en/jst/contents, "The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding."

And according to http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/j/38, the JST is described as "A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible"... "The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible".

Reading these descriptions, I get the impression that the JST is supposed to be viewed as a restoration of the Bible's original text. However, as some of you have said, some parts of it are not necessarily restored, but rather, revised for the purpose of clarification. Is there another official church publication somewhere that explains more precisely what is contained in the JST? For someone like me, it would me nice to know which JST passages are actual restorations of those "plain and precious things that have been lost", and which passages are there simply to clarify doctrine. Is there any way to know?

[David T]

Is there another official church publication somewhere that explains more precisely what is contained in the JST? For someone like me, it would me nice to know which JST passages are actual restorations of those "plain and precious things that have been lost", and which passages are there simply to clarify doctrine. Is there any way to know?

Nothing extensive has been officially published by the Church. It is only in recent years that he Church has acquired access to the manuscripts, and done legitimate research on the subject. Those who did (especially Robert J, Matthews) has published tons on the JST, and discussing his understanding of just the questions you asked. Towards the beginning of this process he published a few articles in the Ensign, but since then, more had been written, and some of the earlier ideas had been refined and revised. There was a fantastic very recent paper edited by Robert J. Matthews that had been hosted by BYU that used to be online, but I just went to link to it, and it seems to have disappeared.

Here's a quote from that paper, that cites Elder McConkie:

"there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author

[urroner]

There was a fantastic very recent paper edited by Robert J. Matthews that had been hosted by BYU that used to be online, but I just went to link to it, and it seems to have disappeared.

Is this the paper?

Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible

[David T]

Is this the paper?

Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible

Yes, it looks like it is! Thanks very much!

Brian: I recommend reading the above linked paper, which was published along with the JST manuscripts.

[Brian]

Thank you. That is certainly more descriptive than what is said about the JST in the Bible Dictionary, and answers my question about being able to know which passages actually restore the original text. I found the section under "Types of Changes" most helpful (partial quote below):

It appears that several different kinds of changes were involved in the process, but it is difficult to know with certainty the nature or origin of any particular change. The following five categories seem to include all of the revisions of the New Translation:

1. Restoration of original text.

2. Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible.

3. Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers.

4. Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations or elsewhere in the Bible.

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors.

This certainly changes my understanding of the Joseph Smith Translation. Would you say that the five categories listed above are officially endorsed by the Church? Ideally, I think it would be nice to have something like a statement from Joseph Smith himself that explains the content of the JST (or New Translation), but I don't suppose anything like that exists, does it?

[Brian]

Any takers?

[renaissance247]

I read about half of the posts here, and skimmed the rest, so forgive me if another understandable translation of the original (not JST) text has been mentioned.

The New Century Version reads, "But people cannot do any work that will make them right with God. So they must trust in him, who makes even evil people right in his sight. Then God accepts their faith, and that makes them right with him."

The Good News Translation (also called Today's English Version) reads, "But those who depend on faith, not on deeds, and who believe in the God who declares the guilty to be innocent, it is this faith that God takes into account in order to put them right with himself."

And finally, the New Living Translation (version 2, 2005) reads, "But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners."

These all explain exactly what the original text as translated in the KJV means, so it is up to you to figure out from that what Joseph Smith said God meant in his "Inspired Version" of the Holy Scriptures used by the Community of Christ (formerly called the RLDS or Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, [notice no hyphen and the capitalization of day in the name]).

[renaissance247]

You can also read the full text that I mentioned, as used by the Community of Christ, in it's entirety as the main text (not as mere footnotes) here: http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

Hope this helps.

[zerinus]

The JST is the most egregious revision of scripture ever produced. That modification identified above is an abominable, invalid interpretation of the scriptures. Another more shocking modification in the Joseph Smith translation is found in Romans 4:5

"but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"

Notice that Joseph Smith inserts the word "not" into the text. Notice also that this absolutely reverses the meaning of the original text. Either God justifies the ungodly or God justifies "not" the ungodly. You can't have it both ways. This is part of the evidences I consider that points to the falsehood of Joseph Smith's ministry and work. There are many other evidences in science, linguistics, theology, history and so on. The presence of a substantial apologetic effort on just about all of Mormonism's claims both theological and historical points the outright falsehood of Mormonism. Of course there is also substantial apologetics in mainline Christendom also. But we need not apologise about the historical record of our scriptures to the same extent that Mormons do for their scriptures. We do not have all the missing pieces that the Book of Mormon has. Not only is our faith alive today through the work of the Holy Spirit, but our faith is also historical. We have the testimony of scripture and we are led by the Spirit - a Spirit that is faithful to the Word of God. We have an authority that comes from the scriptures - God's revealed will - and not from the authority of men. Men like Joseph Smith who twist scriptures and invent scriptures to conform to his own teachings or, more accurately, his whims. I submit the above textual bastardization as another evidence of the falsehood of his prophetic ministry.

1 Corinthians 6

:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[zerinus]

In all the textual evidence of that scripture in Romans 4 we have it how it is read in the mainstream translation we have today. It's not a matter of interpretation. Either God justifies the ungodly or He justifies not the ungodly. Joseph Smith's modification completely changes the meaning of the text. Nowhere other than in the JST do we read the text as Joseph modified it. One must conclude, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Joseph Smith simply altered the verse as he wished.

Why? From a purely logical point of view, his claim that he received it by revelation could be equally valid.

[zerinus]

Has has made us righteous! the scriptures couldn't be more clear about this. He bore our sins so we don't have to. He continues to bear the sins of believers. But true conversion means repentance from sin. When we confess sin AND turn away from sin, this is evidence of true conversion.

He makes us righteous on the condition of faith and repentance (only).

The unfortunate thing about American protestantism is that they have, in large part, moved away from this teaching. Only a few men like Piper and Washer still proclaim this message. Still we need not work to become righteous, rather we must accept Jesus and it is He who is the author and finisher of our faith - not our own works. We don't work for salvation. But true conversion is accompanied always by a changed life.

Which "American Protestantism are you talking about? There are thousands of them. And what is your faith, if not some branch of Protestantism?