The Joseph Smith Translation

[zerinus]

kolipoli,

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Our objection to Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 is on a very specific point, namely, his claim that in the KJV translation "God and his Father," the word Father refers to God's Father -- that is, a Father of the being known as God the Father; in other words, a Grandfather God. That is the interpretation of Revelation 1:6 that is wrong. Few if any non-Mormon scholars have bothered to critique Joseph's view on this point, but I am a non-Mormon, a biblical scholar, and I have studied the construction found in the Greek text here in great depth. Also, as I pointed out, modern translations render the phrase "his God and Father," which clearly rules out Joseph's theological inference from the text.

You guys are blowing a lot of hot air over nothing. I am not aware that Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 anywhere as scriptural evidence that God the Father had a Father. He quotes this verse as proof text that the Godhead, or the Trinity, consisted of three separate Gods. He does not use it as evidence of God the Father having a Father. Here is the quote from his Teachings:

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse—“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—“The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen.”

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)—“And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.” And if it does rain, I’ll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached.

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared

God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural;

and who can contradict it?

Our text says, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.” The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says

God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain,

there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto

God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. (

Teachings

, pp. 369–70.)

Nowhere in this passage does Joseph Smith use Revelation 1:6 as proof text that God the Father had a Father, but merely that the Father and the Son (together with the Holy Ghost) were three distinct and separate Gods. The wording may be a bit confusing because it was not copied form a pre-recorded text. Joseph Smith rarely preached pre-recorded sermons, and they were never recorded verbatim. There were no tape-recorders in those days. People made quick notes of what he said as best they could. The context makes it clear that that is how this passage was preached and how it was recorded. But in spite of all of that, it clear enough from the plain text of what is recorded that he did mean what you guys are portraying him to have meant.

Edited June 24, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

Just want to point out, for the record, what I think of this discussion.

Kinda silly.

The entire notion that Joseph could be "right" or "wrong" on what is termed a "translation"- and please note it is not that in a traditional sense- it is an "Inspired Version" of the Bible, to me, the entire notion is confused in the extreme.

One must first accept the premise that there IS in fact a "correct" version of these old manuscripts which were later incorporated into the Bible, and that these scattered manuscripts from various sources somehow produced a cohesive "doctrine" which can be gleaned by reading multiple books by multiple authors written under highly variable conditions over a couple of thousand years.

After one accepts those premises, one must then believe that there IS in fact an "orthodox interpretation" of this alleged "correct version" of all the gathered writings.

On the other hand, we can believe that Joseph was indeed a prophet who correctly restored the church.

In the face of these two rather improbably scenarios, how would one decide which is true? In my opinion, rationally, one cannot. Believing either of these scenarios may be irrational, but that does not mean that one scenario is not "true".

Since I believe that God himself has told me that scenario 2- that is, the restoration hypothesis, is the "true" option- I have not choice but to accept that indeed Joseph was a prophet.

He was not perfect, he was a man like us, but the difference is that God selected him to restore his church, and what he wrote, why ever or however he wrote what he wrote, what he wrote is inspired.

So, to me, arguing about one phrase or some other phrase is pretty silly.

The option is, do I believe what God has told me, or what some very silly people say on the internet, with no rational basis behind it whatsoever.

No contest. Not even worth arguing about.

[David T]

I am SURE you could find some "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack, just ask Bowman.

He can even fabricate it for you.

What? Why does it have to be an attack? I would expect that if it's a clear and acceptable reading of the original, as it appears to be to you, some scholar, perhaps accredited by SBL or some other legitimate and respected field of biblical scholarship, would have independently recognized this, and presented it as a variant reading long ago, and back it up scholastically. I would actually be very interested in reading such a paper, and would possibly change my stance if someone whose actual focus and specialty in that academic field would present that in a strictly scholastic and non-apologetic or polemical setting. Just because I am unaware of any does not mean it exists.

Seeking for a defense of an assertion does not equal looking for an attack.

Edited June 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

We as Latter-day Saints don't need to defend Joseph's misreading of the KJV, anymore than we need to defend NT writers' misreading of the OT. It's most likely Joseph had already postulated the concept of a genealogy of gods, and saw in that text what appeared to be a prooftext/confirmation.

Yup.

[Mudcat]

You seem to be under the impression that IF God were inspiring JS during the "translation" process THEN He would have made this known to JS.

My impression is the fact that these additions weren't dealt with, then it doesn't stand to the credit of JS that he was inspired.

But assuming he was inspired, then the fact that these additions were left in by JS, seems to indicate that God was permissive of their presence.

This is problematic for LDS I think. The reason I say that, is because it sets a precedent that someone Post apostasy and pre Restoration added to Scripture with God's permission, so speak.

If such is the case, then there seemed to be no need for a Restoration.. at least in the respect of revealing doctrine.

I am not operating under that impression/assumption.

Yes I understand that, but I am wondering what your thoughts are on the conundrum I posited.

I don't see anything that is so doctrinally grievous that would necessitate a correction or removal here.

If you believe it is inspired, then I would see no good way to say they needed removal. The belief in the notion it is inspired is the ad hoc solution.

Well, I can see your point if that is your understanding of what it is saying. I don't take it to mean it in that way.

It sounds like Jesus is saying that they (the apostles given the strictest reading) will take up serpents. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of snake handling in the NT by the apostles.

IIRC, I don't remember the Q12 doing much in the way snake handling either. So I would agree, the CoJCoLDS doesn't seem to find the notion doctrinal.. but again JS didn't correct it either.

What do you make of the verse then?

[LeSellers]

My impression is the fact that these additions weren't dealt with, then it doesn't stand to the credit of JS that he was inspired.

But assuming he was inspired, then the fact that these additions were left in by JS, seems to indicate that God was permissive of their presence.

The purpose of the JST is not what most people (Saints included) think it is.

While it was /is a treaure of doctrine, it's real purpose was to train Joseph Smith as a prophet.

All the Old Testament prophets, Abraham, Moses, and a very few others excepted, grew up in a "prophetic" milieu. They knew what a prophet did, and how he did it. Joseph did not have that tradition. He had to learn it and God gave him the best "training manual" possible: the Bible and the Holy Ghost.

This is problematic for LDS I think. The reason I say that, is because it sets a precedent that someone Post apostasy and pre Restoration added to Scripture with God's permission, so speak.

If such is the case, then there seemed to be no need for a Restoration.. at least in the respect of revealing doctrine.

We do not believe that all truth, nor all righteousness was lost during the Apostasy. There were many who were good, honest, upright people. They lacked the Priesthood of God, and there were some doctrines lost or perverted, notably concerning the nature of God and His relationship to man. But doctrine is, in comparison, the smaller part of the Restoration.

However much it might appear to be problem for us, it is a far greater problem for other Christians, those who believe God was "able to protect His word." Because, like it or not, He did not do so, and this is one of the proofs.

It sounds like Jesus is saying that they (the apostles given the strictest reading) will take up serpents. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of snake handling in the NT by the apostles.

IIRC, I don't remember the Q12 doing much in the way snake handling either. So I would agree, the CoJCoLDS doesn't seem to find the notion doctrinal.. but again JS didn't correct it either.

It depends on whether you view the "serpents" as literal snakes.

I don't necessarily. "Serpents" were a representation of Satan at one point or even several.

Lehi

Edited June 24, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

Just want to point out, for the record, what I think of this discussion.

Kinda silly.

The entire notion that Joseph could be "right" or "wrong" on what is termed a "translation"- and please note it is not that in a traditional sense- it is an "Inspired Version" of the Bible, to me, the entire notion is confused in the extreme.

C'mon Bukowski,

A lot of people believe the Bible to be God's word, inspired and that God has done his best to preserve it over time. Then a guy comes out of the woodwork in mid 19th century with prophetic claims, one of which is that God has charged him with fixing the Bible.

It's going to ruffle some feathers on a number of levels.

One must first accept the premise that there IS in fact a "correct" version of these old manuscripts which were later incorporated into the Bible, and that these scattered manuscripts from various sources somehow produced a cohesive "doctrine" which can be gleaned by reading multiple books by multiple authors written under highly variable conditions over a couple of thousand years.

Bold mine. I think only this premise must be accepted. I don't imagine LDS would disagree with that part.. but I dunno... would they?

After one accepts those premises, one must then believe that there IS in fact an "orthodox interpretation" of this alleged "correct version" of all the gathered writings.

No I don't this has to be accepted either, by any means. The fact that there are numerous doctrinal interpretations of the Bible is something I would submit in evidence. I think most would say that the text itself is somewhat ancillary to the Holy Spirit in the determination of doctrine.

The argument hinges on the notion that either the originals were distorted beyond doctrinal validity or they were not. Certainly I would argue that they haven't been so mangled as to lose their potency. "The grass withers, the flowers fade, but...."

At best, I can say the JST does a good job of trying to draw the Biblical text into line with LDS theology.

[Vance]

If such is the case, then there seemed to be no need for a Restoration.. at least in the respect of revealing doctrine.

Sorry, but I think your logic chain is missing a few links. The Restoration was/is about more than just doctrine.

I concur with Lehi's post above.

[Vance]

C'mon Bukowski,

<SNIP>

The problem is that language is a human invention and as such there is no "correct" way to communicate spiritual things. Only the Spirit can communicate "correctly" to an individual and then that individual is left with human language to attempt to communicate that pure knowledge to others.

Just as the scriptures are inspired, to understand them "correctly" the Spirit must reveal them. But the Spirit to spirit communication link isn't human language, but pure light and knowledge.

That is the way I see it.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

IT was my understanding that you are correct here, I would however like to see a literal Greek translation from you just for the sake of the arguments.

Thanks Rob.

And thank you for asking.

Let me transliterate the Greek and provide an interlinear translation for ease of reference:

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτου

hiereis to theo kai patri autou

priests (to) the God and Father his

Greek word order (syntax) differs from English. One of the ways it does so is that it can place the possessive adjective at the end of a noun cluster. Thus, where we would say in English "his God and Father," Greek can put "his" at the end. It is a mistake to take "his" to qualify only "Father"; it qualifies the whole noun cluster, "his God-and-Father." Compare the following texts that have the exact same construction:

tou theou kai patros hemon, "of our God and Father" (Gal. 1:4; 1 Thess. 3:13)

to theo kai patri hemon, "to our God and Father" (Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3)

ho theos kai pater hemon, "our God and Father" (1 Thess. 3:11)

ton theon kai patera tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6)

to theo kai patri, hotan katargese, "to the God and Father, after he has destroyed" (1 Cor. 15:24; note the singular verb)

ho theos kai pater tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3)

to de theo kai patri hemon, "Now to our God and Father" (Phil. 4:20)

In all of these texts, the definite article (spelled ho, to, tou, or ton) functions as the article for both nouns, as is very common in Greek with personal nouns (not proper names, but words like father, brother, lord, king, servant, etc.). For some examples, see the "Lord and Savior" texts in 2 Peter (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18), or any number of other passages, most of which are not at all controversial (e.g., Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; Heb. 3:1; 12:2; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:1).

There is even another instance of this Greek construction just three verses after Revelation 1:6:

" I, John, your brother and companion [ho adelphos humon kai sugkoinonos] in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus..." (Rev. 1:9).

This information should be sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Revelation 1:6 does not mean "priests to God and to his (God's) Father"; it means "priests to his (Christ's) God and Father." I do not know of one modern translation, commentary, or scholarly publication that would disagree with this conclusion.

[jmordecai]

I am SURE you could find some "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack, just ask Bowman.

He can even fabricate it for you.

So I understand the rules here... insulting the dead is off limits, but insulting the living is fair game?

[mfbukowski]

One must first accept the premise that there IS in fact a "correct" version of these old manuscripts which were later incorporated into the Bible,

Bold mine. I think only this premise must be accepted. I don't imagine LDS would disagree with that part.. but I dunno... would they?

Brother Mudmeister!

As far as "LDS would disagree" with what I said, I think it is an open question, since I certainly do not speak for anyone but myself. But:

8th Article of Faith:

8We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;...

I think that clearly, from that Article, the burden of proof is being put on the "correct translation" of the Bible, and of course the word "translation" is highly ambiguous and covers a lot of territory. In other words, if it is NOT "translated correctly" we do NOT believe it is the word of God.

Now the question is: how does one show WHAT IS "translated correctly"- from it's "original version"- as written from the "pens" of the original writers?

None of it- none whatsoever- can be shown to be "original". So how is one to know what is correct or not correct?

Which bit of poetry is "true"- Shakespeare or Robert Frost?

Even if every word of the Bible could be absolutely PROVEN by magical means- perhaps we go back in a time machine to each prophet and catch his exact words- EVEN IN SUCH AN ABSURD CASE, all we would have is WORDS- correct words- at least we would know that. But how would we know that the man Jesus who was (perhaps, let's say our time machine verified that) crucified WAS IN FACT THE SON OF GOD AND THE MESSIAH?

Words- that is all we would have! Even with a time machine!

The Lord has given us the only possible criterion for proving doctrine- and that is found in Moroni 10:4-

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

I think we just must fact the facts that science- and "scientific history" which is called "archaeology" cannot possibly PROVE DOCTRINE.

Even the folks you would call "Christians" disagree about doctrine- or for that matter who even should be called "Christian"! How absurd is that? The Bible supposedly teaches "truth" but those who believe it disagree on what it says!

There is obviously only way to know doctrinal truth- and that method is found in Moroni 10:4.

Of course people will even disagree about that. We can argue for eternity and it will not get any better!

We live in an ambiguous world and religion is the most ambiguous human activity which exists. That's why they call them "faiths".

Edited June 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Nemesis]

I am SURE you could find some "legitimate", "convincing", or "credible" attack, just ask Bowman.

He can even fabricate it for you.

This has to stop. It is not allowed here and I have given you plenty of warnings. This one will cost you a week. The next time a month and after that its going to just be a banning. Sorry but there is no need for it.

Nemesis

[zerinus]

Mola,

You wrote:

And thank you for asking.

Let me transliterate the Greek and provide an interlinear translation for ease of reference:

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτου

hiereis to theo kai patri autou

priests (to) the God and Father his

Greek word order (syntax) differs from English. One of the ways it does so is that it can place the possessive adjective at the end of a noun cluster. Thus, where we would say in English "his God and Father," Greek can put "his" at the end. It is a mistake to take "his" to qualify only "Father"; it qualifies the whole noun cluster, "his God-and-Father." Compare the following texts that have the exact same construction:

tou theou kai patros hemon, "of our God and Father" (Gal. 1:4; 1 Thess. 3:13)

to theo kai patri hemon, "to our God and Father" (Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3)

ho theos kai pater hemon, "our God and Father" (1 Thess. 3:11)

ton theon kai patera tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6)

to theo kai patri, hotan katargese, "to the God and Father, after he has destroyed" (1 Cor. 15:24; note the singular verb)

ho theos kai pater tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3)

to de theo kai patri hemon, "Now to our God and Father" (Phil. 4:20)

In all of these texts, the definite article (spelled ho, to, tou, or ton) functions as the article for both nouns, as is very common in Greek with personal nouns (not proper names, but words like father, brother, lord, king, servant, etc.). For some examples, see the "Lord and Savior" texts in 2 Peter (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18), or any number of other passages, most of which are not at all controversial (e.g., Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; Heb. 3:1; 12:2; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:1).

There is even another instance of this Greek construction just three verses after Revelation 1:6:

" I, John, your brother and companion [ho adelphos humon kai sugkoinonos] in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus..." (Rev. 1:9).

This information should be sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Revelation 1:6 does not mean "priests to God and to his (God's) Father"; it means "priests to his (Christ's) God and Father." I do not know of one modern translation, commentary, or scholarly publication that would disagree with this conclusion.

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had understood Revelation 1:6 any differently from the way in which modern linguists (or old linguists for that matter) had understood them. On the contrary, the JST version of these verses proves exactly the opposite. Here is the relevant quote (added or deleted words typed in red):

Revelation 1

:

KJV:

5-6 . . . Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

JST:

6

And

unto him

that

who

loved us,

be glory;

and

who

washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God

,

and

his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.

[David T]

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had understood Revelation 1:6 any differently from the way in which modern linguists (or old linguists for that matter) had understood them. On the contrary, the JST version of these verses proves exactly the opposite. Here is the relevant quote (added or deleted words typed in red):

Revelation 1

:

KJV:

5-6 . . . Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

JST:

6

And

unto him

that

who

loved us,

be glory;

and

who

washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God

,

and

his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.

Zerinus:

I don't think anyone really says Joseph usage of the verse in the Sermon at the Grove is the "standard". He's clearly thinking he's going to be shocking people.

The JST was in 1830-1831. The Sermon in the Grove was in 1844. Joseph's mindset, frames of reference, and usage of scripture changed a lot in those 15 years. There are many scriptures he uses very differently in later years than how he revised them in the early JST.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

I don't think anyone really says Joseph usage of the verse in the Sermon at the Grove is the "standard". He's clearly thinking he's going to be shocking people.

The JST was in 1830-1831. The Sermon in the Grove was in 1844. Joseph's mindset, frames of reference, and usage of scripture changed a lot in those 15 years. There are many scriptures he uses very differently in later years than how he revised them in the early JST.

Then you must have missed my post #51. My post #64 is a continuation of that, and ties into it. You need to consider them together.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

You guys are blowing a lot of hot air over nothing. I am not aware that Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 anywhere as scriptural evidence that God the Father had a Father. He quotes this verse as proof text that the Godhead, or the Trinity, consisted of three separate Gods. He does not use it as evidence of God the Father having a Father.... Nowhere in this passage does Joseph Smith use Revelation 1:6 as proof text that God the Father had a Father, but merely that the Father and the Son (together with the Holy Ghost) were three distinct and separate Gods. The wording may be a bit confusing because it was not copied form a pre-recorded text. Joseph Smith rarely preached pre-recorded sermons, and they were never recorded verbatim. There were no tape-recorders in those days. People made quick notes of what he said as best they could. The context makes it clear that that is how this passage was preached and how it was recorded. But in spite of all of that, it clear enough from the plain text of what is recorded that he did mean what you guys are portraying him to have meant.

The issue here boils down to a comma, I'm afraid. In Joseph Fielding Smith's editing of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, he quotes Joseph Smith as having said:

My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private" (370).

However, most likely the comma placed after "God above" is incorrect. What Joseph seems to have said was "there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." This forum had a discussion on the matter a couple of years ago.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[zerinus]

The issue here boils down to a comma, I'm afraid. In Joseph Fielding Smith's editing of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, he quotes Joseph Smith as having said:

However, most likely the comma placed after "God above" is incorrect. What Joseph seems to have said was "there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." This forum had a discussion on the matter a couple of years ago.

That simply is not a reasonable assumption. The comma has been put there as far as I know since the earliest edition of the Teachings was published. In the days when the Teachings were first published, the idea of God the Father having a Father had not become a controversial issue in Mormonism, and it would not have been something that Joseph Fielding Smith or anyone else would have felt uncomfortable about, or would have wanted to try to "cover up". The reason why they put the comma there is because they genuinely believed that that was the most logical place to put it, from the reading of the context; and that is something that we can verify for ourselves, simply by reading the passage in its context. The context is about establishing that the Trinity consists of three distinct and separate Gods, not about God the Father having a Father. That is made perfectly clear form the context. So your arguments simply do not carry any weight. And the JST quote I gave puts the final nail in the coffin of that false theorizing. Thus whether we view it from a historical or the literary perspective, or judging it contextually, the comma is put in the right place. You guys are beating about the bush for nothing.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

On reading further in the same sermon, we find Joseph Smith coming back to the meaning of John's statement in Revelation 1:6, as follows:

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

This passage makes it explicit and I would say reasonably undeniable that we have been representing Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 correctly. He explicitly states here that what John understood Revelation 1:6 to mean was "that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father." This is how Mormon leaders and teachers historically have understood Joseph's remarks in this sermon. B. H. Roberts, for example, had this to say:

In the greeting to the seven churches of Asia, which John embodies in his preface to the Apocalypse, he says: "Grace be unto you * * * from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. * * * Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." I call special attention to the words written above in italics-"unto God and his Father," which can only mean God and the Father of God, which certainly conveys the ideas of a plurality of Gods. (New Witnesses for God, 1:468-69)

In support of his understanding of Revelation 1:6, Roberts quoted in a footnote the very passage from Joseph Smith that I have quoted above.

I believe this information ought to settle the matter once and for all.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

On reading further in the same sermon, we find Joseph Smith coming back to the meaning of John's statement in Revelation 1:6, as follows:

This passage makes it explicit and I would say reasonably undeniable that we have been representing Joseph Smith's understanding of Revelation 1:6 correctly. He explicitly states here that what John understood Revelation 1:6 to mean was "that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father." This is how Mormon leaders and teachers historically have understood Joseph's remarks in this sermon. B. H. Roberts, for example, had this to say:

In support of his understanding of Revelation 1:6, Roberts quoted in a footnote the very passage from Joseph Smith that I have quoted above.

I believe this information ought to settle the matter once and for all.

I see that rather ambiguous, especially in the light of the passage I had quoted and discussed above. And as far as B.H. Roberts is concerned, he was himself a controversial figure. He was a Seventy, and did not get further than that. He was a great Latter-day Saint, but also a controversial one; and I wouldn't accept at face value everything that he says.

[Mudcat]

My net is out. I forgot to pay the bill. Though I corrected it with a payment .... the billing staff may not get it up till Monday..

I am posting from my phone. I dont touch type well .. so I am out for the moment.

My only immediate comment would be to coin a phrase from the sarge on Hill St. Blues....

"...Hey... Let's be careful out there":."

edit add...

nevermind, they got it going.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Mudcat

[David T]

I see that rather ambiguous

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I see that rather ambiguous, especially in the light of the passage I had quoted and discussed above. And as far as B.H. Roberts is concerned, he was himself a controversial figure. He was a Seventy, and did not get further than that. He was a great Latter-day Saint, but also a controversial one; and I wouldn't accept at face value everything that he says.

If you think the statement I quoted from Joseph Smith is "rather ambiguous," there is no hope for us to get any further on this point. As for B. H. Roberts, I grant you that he didn't make it to LDS Church President, but I'm guessing he made it a bit further up the ladder than you have. Unless your initials are TSM and you've been posting here incognito.... And in any case, if you think Joseph's statement is ambiguous, no statement on the matter from even President Monson could possibly help clarify the matter any further for you.

[Edited to correct a goof on Pres. Monson's initials!]

Edited June 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[David T]

Unless your initials are TLM

TSM?

[Mudcat]

The purpose of the JST is not what most people (Saints included) think it is.

While it was /is a treaure of doctrine, it's real purpose was to train Joseph Smith as a prophet.

All the Old Testament prophets, Abraham, Moses, and a very few others excepted, grew up in a "prophetic" milieu. They knew what a prophet did, and how he did it. Joseph did not have that tradition. He had to learn it and God gave him the best "training manual" possible: the Bible and the Holy Ghost.

Okay.. so the JST was just a training exercise. I dunno why you would suggest that Moses grew up in a "prophetic" milieu, he grew up as an Egyptian not a Hebrew.

We do not believe that all truth, nor all righteousness was lost during the Apostasy. There were many who were good, honest, upright people. They lacked the Priesthood of God, and there were some doctrines lost or perverted, notably concerning the nature of God and His relationship to man. But doctrine is, in comparison, the smaller part of the Restoration.

Bold mine. JS lack of correction of Biblical additions either institutes the ineptness of such correction or the validity of such additions.

However much it might appear to be problem for us, it is a far greater problem for other Christians, those who believe God was "able to protect His word." Because, like it or not, He did not do so, and this is one of the proofs.

No I don't think it is a greater problem for non-LDS Christians. We can recognize the concept that it was likely an addition to the text and deal with it. I have.

But like it or not, if such is proof that God did not protect his word, then even more so it is certainly a proof that JS wasn't able to restore it either. Certainly it devalues the credibility of JST.

It depends on whether you view the "serpents" as literal snakes.

I don't necessarily. "Serpents" were a representation of Satan at one point or even several.

That is possibly the best ad hoc offering Lehi. But it's ad hoc nonetheless. Your insertion of metaphor into Christ's statement is convienient.. does it make the whole statement metaphorical? I mean is any of the other signs metaphorical... no harm from poison, laying hands on the sick, speaking in new tongues?

Or do you choose to believe that Christ was charging the apostles to literally lay hands on the sick and let them know they would speak in tongues and be unharmed by poison.. but tossed them a metaphor about handling Satan for some reason?