The Joseph Smith Translation

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

I am actually confident that this happened many times. Out of context Proof texts are often used to bolster authority for something you already believe from another unrelated source.

For example, there are many proof-texts NT writers use from the (usually greek) OT to show a prophetic foreshadowing to events in the life of Christ. If it is determined that the context of the original scriptural source was saying something very different, that doesn't mean to me that the event in the life of Christ didn't necessarily happen, just that it wasn't specifically foreshadowed in detail anciently.

Rob, is it your view that all of the Gospel writers correctly parse the context and meaning of every original Hebrew scriptures they are citing when they use them as proof-texts for events or significance in the ministry of Jesus? Do you believe the Gospel writers could be inspired to bear witness of a true event they independently witnessed (or heard someone tell them about), and base its significance on a proof text that does not in fact support it?

First of all, there is a big difference between viewing statements in a scripture as foreshadowing an event involving Jesus Christ and viewing statements in a scripture as teaching a doctrine that is simply not there and not even arguably anticipated, foreshadowed, typified, or prepared for in that scripture.

Second, no NT writer makes erroneous claims about the Hebrew of the Old Testament, as Joseph Smith did (in the very sermon we are discussing here), as support for his doctrine.

These two points seem sufficient to show that the comparison is not apt.

[webbles]

Now, one response (from zerinus) has been to deny that Joseph drew that conclusion from Revelation 1:6. That response is simply not credible, as nackhadlow has also pointed out.

I have a relative who also denies that conclusion. He has a book that shows the 3 or 4 transcripts (it's been 5-6 years since I saw the book) that were made at the time of the speech. When you look at the areas that say that God the Father has a Father, you'll find enough ambiguity between them that you can read it either way. My relative (who is LDS) believes that God the Father is the first God and does not have a father and he uses the King Follet speech to back his position.

A second possible response is to argue that Joseph Smith might have been right about Revelation 1:6. Now that the exegetical reasoning for rejecting Joseph's interpretation has been presented, I wonder if anyone wishes to continue maintaining this position. Frankly and honestly, I just don't see this as a viable response, but I'm open to seeing it defended.

The only response left would seem to be to conclude that Joseph was mistaken, as nackhadlow seems to have concluded. For those who would land here, I wonder how far this goes. Specifically, if Joseph was wrong about the meaning of Revelation 1:6, his main proof text for the doctrine that God the Father himself had a Father, doesn't this undermine any basis for confidence in that doctrine? Or can Joseph have been inspired by God to reveal a doctrine and base it on a proof text that does not in fact support it? Surely, if Joseph could be mistaken in his understanding of the Bible, he could also be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine.

I'm of the opinion that this is similar to the issues with Isaiah 7:14. Most Christians take that verse as a prophecy of Christ's birth, yet Jewish scholars do not see that (wikipedia has a list of some of their issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14). So, if Matthew was wrong there, where else could he be wrong?

For me, I'm perfectly fine with believing that Matthew knew Christ was the Savior and he gave Isaiah 7:14 a new meaning when he added it to his Gospel. And Joseph Smith knew that God the Father had a Father (through the same means that Matthew knew, ie. revelation) and he gave Revelation 1:6 a new meaning.

[Rob Bowman]

webbles,

You wrote:

I have a relative who also denies that conclusion. He has a book that shows the 3 or 4 transcripts (it's been 5-6 years since I saw the book) that were made at the time of the speech. When you look at the areas that say that God the Father has a Father, you'll find enough ambiguity between them that you can read it either way. My relative (who is LDS) believes that God the Father is the first God and does not have a father and he uses the King Follet speech to back his position.

It would help if we had a reference.

You wrote:

I'm of the opinion that this is similar to the issues with Isaiah 7:14. Most Christians take that verse as a prophecy of Christ's birth, yet Jewish scholars do not see that (wikipedia has a list of some of their issues at http://en.wikipedia....iki/Isaiah_7:14). So, if Matthew was wrong there, where else could he be wrong?

For me, I'm perfectly fine with believing that Matthew knew Christ was the Savior and he gave Isaiah 7:14 a new meaning when he added it to his Gospel. And Joseph Smith knew that God the Father had a Father (through the same means that Matthew knew, ie. revelation) and he gave Revelation 1:6 a new meaning.

This explanation is not compatible with your relative's explanation. As for this explanation, see my reply to nackhadlow, where I explain why it is not a valid comparison.

[David T]

First of all, there is a big difference between viewing statements in a scripture as foreshadowing an event involving Jesus Christ and viewing statements in a scripture as teaching a doctrine that is simply not there and not even arguably anticipated, foreshadowed, typified, or prepared for in that scripture.

So it is your position that nothing of the sort ever happens in any of, say, the Pauline Epistles? I'm guessing the word 'arguably' gives a ton of leeway, and will make going down this path less than useful.

Edited June 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Feel free to cite an example of what you have in mind.

So it is your position that nothing of the sort ever happens in any of, say, the Pauline Epistles? I'm guessing the word 'arguably' gives a ton of leeway, and will make going down this path less than useful.

[Mudcat]

Mormon 9:22b-24

Thanks for the reference MM.

22For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;

23And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;

24And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;

The fact that there is a near verbatim quotation in Mormon to that we find in the Marcan Appendix is interesting.

From a non-LDS perspective, it points to another credibility issue. JS not only does not repair the ending of Mark, but also utilizes these verses that were likely added to the Biblical text in BoM, as well.

I would think it would leave an LDS position in the place of having to defend a Biblical addition because it corroborates with the BoM, though there isn't good evidence it was there early on.

But there is a quandary created by the support of it. That being, God was able to restore Scripture through agents prior to JS.

[mfbukowski]

You view each factual objection as a "straw man" argument. I view each factual objection as at the very least another piece of straw in a very high and heavy pile of straw.

A very interesting and revealing statement.

I am not sure if the pile is as much "high" as it is "deep".

[Mudcat]

Incorrect. Question, have you seen Nack's story on translation, and how it works, especially considering the BoM? The translation is not perfect in wording, it is perfect in meaning. And truly, is that not the only thing that matters?

Backtracking. Sorry TAO, saw MM's before I read through yours.

Bold mine. You assumption is based upon a concept that additions do not change meaning. This could be the case only if we treated them as having a zero value. Or that they were inert so speak.

I would disagree that such additions lack potency or don't impact meaning, if we treat them as God's word.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the reference MM.

The fact that there is a near verbatim quotation in Mormon to that we find in the Marcan Appendix is interesting.

From a non-LDS perspective, it points to another credibility issue. JS not only does not repair the ending of Mark, but also utilizes these verses that were likely added to the Biblical text in BoM, as well.

I would think it would leave an LDS position in the place of having to defend a Biblical addition because it corroborates with the BoM, though there isn't good evidence it was there early on.

But there is a quandary created by the support of it. That being, God was able to restore Scripture through agents prior to JS.

It's not "credible" that the savior would give the same instructions to disciples on one side of the earth that he gave on the other side of the earth?

Would it be more "credible" if he gave a whole different doctrine?

I guess that Joseph was pretty dumb to just re-write it in the Book of Mormon- I guess he figured that since no one reads the Bible, they'd never catch on to the similarity, huh?

[webbles]

webbles,

You wrote:

It would help if we had a reference.

You wrote:

This explanation is not compatible with your relative's explanation. As for this explanation, see my reply to nackhadlow, where I explain why it is not a valid comparison.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I don't agree with my relative. And as for a reference, I won't be seeing him till probably Christmas so I doubt I'll be able to give one. I was just pointing out that there is at least on other LDS member that doesn't reach the conclusion that Joseph Smith taught that God had a father and I attempted to give his reasons.

And I saw your reply to nackhadlow (you wrote it while I was figuring out my reply). I can see the difference you are making, but to me, if one prophet/apostle can take a scripture and modify its original meaning in any form, what prevents another prophet/apostle? And if one prophet/apostle is false for modifying the original meaning, then how can we trust any prophet/apostle that modifies the meaning of scripture? I'm not trying to convince you to accept this, but you had asked if anyone can accept the meaning that Joseph Smith gave to Revelations 1:6 and I'm just showing you how I accept it.

Edited to add: I just noticed that you were referencing another sermon after King Follet. I believe the book my relative has is only related to King Follet. I'll have to ask him how he handles that other sermon.

Edited June 26, 2011 by webbles

[Mudcat]

It's not "credible" that the savior would give the same instructions to disciples on one side of the earth that he gave on the other side of the earth?

Apologies to Lehi. I am bumping ahead of Lehi's post to answer and intend to respond to it.

The verses in Mormon are ancillary, but supportive to the point. That being, if a person thinks Mormon 9 is God's word and one also recognizes that there was point in time in which the same words of Christ were non extant in Mark but reappeared at some point. Then one, given the evidence, would also have to believe that some person had the power through God to restore Scripture prior to the advent of JS.

If they did not believe such, then they would have to create an ad hoc solution to resolve the issue, I would think.

Would it be more "credible" if he gave a whole different doctrine?

This question doesn't change the scenario presented. edit add - Doctrinal consistency would be anticipated if there were multiple groups of disciples across the globe that Christ directly ministered to.

I guess that Joseph was pretty dumb to just re-write it in the Book of Mormon- I guess he figured that since no one reads the Bible, they'd never catch on to the similarity, huh?

I wouldn't make a pejorative towards JS's intellectual acumen. I don't believe there is good reason to think he would have had the knowledge of the critical issues relating to the end of Mark at his disposal. This doesn't stand to his credit, but certainly does not articulate that he was a dullard.. or something like that.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Mudcat

[shalamabobbi]

Joseph Smith's goal was not necessarily to add things missing from the original Bible, but to update it and correct it doctrinally. Some consider his efforts more of a Midrash, than a "translation" (which is a poor term to use for what he did).

It is noteworthy, however, that some things were restored. The Book of Enoch fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls note Enoch meeting a man Mahujah who asks him questions. Well, in the Book of Moses (part of the JST) Enoch travels to a place Mahujah, where a man Mahijah asks him questions. They are basically the same word here. This concept and Mahijah/Mahujah is found nowhere else except in the Book of Moses and the DSS Enoch fragments.

Thanks for sharing this. These kinds of posts make it worth while to hang out here.

[zerinus]

Frankly, sometimes Mormons defending the indefensible weakens our credibility as a whole. I tend to seek to defend that which is meaningful and requires defense, rather than try to make everything fit into a neat and perfect little box. My faith doesn't require Joseph to be Doctrinally and Scripturally Inerrant in all things to be a legitimate prophet.

Some Mormons feel it's their duty to disagree with everything someone from another faith says, even if there may be a legitimate point to it (although they'd never agree the opponent has a legitimate point). This is not helpful.

I didn't quite appreciate your use of "our". Yours maybe, but not "ours". I suggest you worry about your credibility, not mine. I can take care of that very well, think you.

Let me recap a point that I think has been sufficiently defended and ask those who have not yet commented how they would respond to this point. We have shown, first, that Joseph Smith, in his sermon at the grove in June 1844, claimed that Revelation 1:6 KJV ("God and his Father") referred to God and God's Father, thus revealing that God the Father himself had a Father.

Don’t get carried away by the support you are getting from a bunch of idiotic Mormons. There is no direct evidence that Joseph Smith’s belief in God the Father having a Father is based on Revelation 1:6. Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that God the Father had a Father first in the King Follett discourse, which was preached two months earlier the one you are considering; and in there he makes no mention of Revelation 1:6. He quotes or refers to other passages in the Gospel of John to back up his teachings, notably John 5 and John 10; but not Revelation 1:6. There is no direct evidence that Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 as proof text for his doctrine of the Father having a Father as well.

[Xander]

kolipoki09

So you know of "at least one Mormon Bible scholars" (sic) and you assume there are others, you just can't substantiate that claim.

I also cannot substantiate my assumptions that no Catholic Bible scholar believes Gen 1:1 refers to Monday, 6am, and that no LDS Bible scholar believes John 3:16 is in reference to saving someone from a gunfight. However, these are fairly safe assumptions because no professional Bible scholar is really this dumb. This is why none of them believe Rev 1:6 refers to Jesus' Grandfather in heaven. As I said, you could easily refute this by providing just one name, but I think you know I'm right and you're just trying to kick the problem down the street instead of dealing with it.

Also, where does Bokovoy deny Joseph Smith's teaching that God Himself had a Father?

This is the second time I've had to correct you on this. I never said Bokovoy "denied Joseph Smith's teaching that God Himself had a Father." I said Bokovoy denied that Rev 1:6 was trying to convey that message. Whether he believes Joseph Smith accepted that doctrine is beside the point. I had an exchange with him on this subject a few years ago on a forum I won't be able to link here.

How does my belief about the verse being central to the concept of kingship and deification (among several other verses) deny the notion that God Himself had a Father?

I never said it denied that. That was your red herring.

Zerenius,

Don’t get carried away by the support you are getting from a bunch of idiotic Mormons.

My, my.

There is no direct evidence that Joseph Smith’s belief in God the Father having a Father is based on Revelation 1:6.

You're shifting your ground again. The argument - pay attention - is that Joseph Smith believed Rev 1:6 teaches us that God the Father has a Father. This turns out to be a false reading based on an ambiguous translation found in the KJV. No Bible scholar will support his reading, LDS or otherwise. This is a huge credibility issue for a man claiming to be a genuine Prophet of God. These are the guys who are supposed to be able to tell us what the scriptures really mean and provide correct translations. But in the end, we're forced to rely on the "arm of the flesh" because Joseph Smith gets it terribly wrong.

Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that God the Father had a Father first in the King Follett discourse, which was preached two months earlier the one you are considering

No he didn't. But even if he did... so what? You're getting desperate.

There is no direct evidence that Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 as proof text for his doctrine of the Father having a Father as well.

It is difficult to believe you're typing this stuff with a straight face. The June 16th sermon of 1844 was based on the thesis statement of Rev 1:6. Joseph Smith eventually makes his belief explicit when he says John the Revelator tells us that God the Father has a Father. If he wasn't referring to Rev 1:6, then which verse in Revelation was he referring to?

[Hestia]

Don’t get carried away by the support you are getting from a bunch of idiotic Mormons.

This is what we don't need on here. You can take a break from the thread so it can get back on track.

[Mudcat]

No, it was more than a training exercise. But it did fulfill that purpose, among others. And that was, at least in my mind, the most important of the purposes.

My question here is somewhat similar to what Xander has already asked. If Joseph's translating the Bible was a training exercise, then what was it to train him for specifically? I don't know of any other example of where a prophet was called upon to retranslate/correct previous texts.. unless you count Moses after he broke all the commandments.

Sorry? I said Moses, Abraham and a few others were excepted from that rule.

My apologies Lehi, I misread that earlier.

What Joseph was doing was multifaceted.

First (after the training process), he was restoring doctrine, as it was revealed to him.

The translation of the JST, as Joseph and his scribes revealed to us, was that he'd read a passage, and then, if it "felt right", they passed over it. It was only when something didn't mesh well with what Joseph knew or didn't pass the spiritual 'smell test', he'd reflect on it, and pray for the inspiration needed to make the passage correct. That's why it was never finished. He kept going back and, knowing more himself, found more and more places that needed additional revisions.

Thanks for the D&C 9 reference.

This seems to be what you are articulating here. But given that, then you would to consider that JS read through passages that were likely additions to the text, such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11 & 1 John 5:7-8, and somehow these things "felt right" and were passed over by him.

I understand you believe the JST was a work in progress, but I don't see how this could instill confidence in his ability to "feel" things correctly.

I'll ask for your speculation on this Lehi. Why do you think the above examples were passed over... or passed the smell test?

I am a technical writer. When I am writing a manual, there are pieces that don't make sense to me in the source materials. It's then that I ask the engineers what they are trying to get across. It was roughly the same with Joseph. When the document was good enough, it was good enough.

No one I know claims that the JST was an endless stream of revelation, with Joseph dictating the word of the Lord word-for-word as He revealed the entire Bible to this generation. See Doc&Cov 9.

The fact that you are a technical writer explains a number or curious observations I have made of you over the years. It suits you well, I would think.

Only if you assume that the process was different from what it actually was, and that the JST was something more than what we really have.

The fact that fairly significant Biblical additions remained unaddressed seems like it should be significant, given the general objective.

I have no problem having a mix of the two. God's word is loaded with such things, and has been since the Book of Remembrance Adam kept.

I wouldn't expect you would.

Regards,

Mudcat

[David T]

The fact that fairly significant Biblical additions remained unaddressed seems like it should be significant, given the general objective.

The general objective was to update, clarify and correct the presentation of doctrine being taught based on current developing understanding. I think the concept of "what is being taught and how it is understood" completely trumped the concept of 'original text'. It a narrative was understood as teaching a true principle, there was no reason seen to strike it from the record. Especially if the language was useful.

While restorations of original ancient text would be interesting, I don't think it would have been nearly as useful for conveying relevant lived practical teaching in the 19th century.

Edited June 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

My question here is somewhat similar to what Xander has already asked.

I am ignoring Xander's posts for reasons I articulated earlier (and which got me banned from that topic). I will not go into it here.

If Joseph's translating the Bible was a training exercise, then what was it to train him for specifically? I don't know of any other example of where a prophet was called upon to retranslate/correct previous texts.. unless you count Moses after he broke all the commandments.

I disagree. There are a host of places where a prophet recopied tests, notably Jeremiah when the king (whose name escapes me momentarily) burned the originals. Chronicles is a retelling of the whole, from Genesis through 2 Kings and so on.

But I believe you are wrong about Moses. While it is true that God re-wrote the tablets (and changed the covenant from the Law of the Gospel to the Law of "Moses"), please recall that Moses was not an eye witness to any of the events from Adam to a thousand years after the flood, and that the books of Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham and others were the sources for his Genesis account.

Reviewing and rewriting scripture is an ancient and respected tradition among prophets.

[Doc&Cov 9: "study it out in your mind, etc.] seems to be what you are articulating here. But given that, then you would to consider that JS read through passages that were likely additions to the text, such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11 & 1 John 5:7-8, and somehow these things "felt right" and were passed over by him.

I understand you believe the JST was a work in progress, but I don't see how this could instill confidence in his ability to "feel" things correctly.

I'll ask for your speculation on this Lehi. Why do you think the above examples were passed over... or passed the smell test?

My Jacquie just brought me lunch. I am not hungry, but I am "hungry for something". What, I don't know. But the point is, I'm feeling a bit anxious, and, if I follow up on it, I'll find what I need (probably chocolate).

As I envision it, this is sort of what Joseph felt: he had a nagging unsettled feeling about a certain passage, and, when it felt important enough (and i imagine that threshold may have changed day-to-day), he'd follow up on it and get an answer.

One of the things I see as being a serious issue for non_LDS Christians is that you all do not know what a prophet actually is. Your opinions on the matter are colored by the fact that you, like Joseph 200 years ago, have never seen one. The Bible is a poor teaching ground for you because it doesn't tell us much (if anything) useful about the men who were prophets. It only tells us about the prophets as prophets. We don't know, for instance, what Zipporah felt about Moses' taking his other wife. We don't know, aside from the incident near the inn, what issues they had with child rearing or if she looked fat in a certain robe and how Moses answered "The Question" about it. We know next to noting about him aside form his role as a prophet. On the other hand, we know almost everything about Joseph Smith, too much, in fact. What was it Jesus said: A prophet is not without honor save inhis own country". With the advent of the printing press, the whole world is the country of Joseph Smith.

In my mind Joseph didn't emend these (and other passages in the general class) because they presented, reasonably well, sound doctrine and so did not trigger whatever sense Joseph was employing as he perused the Bible.

The fact that fairly significant Biblical additions remained unaddressed seems like it should be significant, given the general objective.

Given what you assume to be the general objective, perhaps.

I think the Lord is the Only Qualified Person to judge what the "general objective" was/is. Given that He was reasonably pleased with the result, whatever that objective was, it must have been satisfied.

Lehi

Edited June 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[hungrytrash]

I really don't understand. It's clear to me that Joseph believed that God had a Father, but he definitely didn't interpret Rev 1:6 as directly saying it. "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..." That makes it pretty clear that Joseph was simply saying that Christ (who was/is commonly believed to be God Himself), had a literal Father. From there, if Christ, who was believed to be God, had a Father, then God Himself could have a Father.

Joseph was showing that if Christ had a Father, then the Father could easily (and does) have a Father also. Everything he said is in full harmony with the inspired translation he made. If anything, the inspired translation supports Joseph more. I'm laughing at how it was said it was "indefensible" that Joseph was saying anything other than that Rev 1:6 meant that God the Father had a Father. Am I missing something? I have to be. Did I miss a post addressing zerinus' post?

[hungrytrash]

I really don't understand. It's clear to me that Joseph believed that God had a Father, but he definitely didn't interpret Rev 1:6 as directly saying it. "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..." That makes it pretty clear that Joseph was simply saying that Christ (who was/is commonly believed to be God Himself), had a literal Father. From there, if Christ, who was believed to be God, had a Father, then God Himself could have a Father.

Joseph was showing that if Christ had a Father, then the Father could easily (and does) have a Father also. Everything he said is in full harmony with the inspired translation he made. If anything, the inspired translation supports Joseph more. I'm laughing at how it was said it was "indefensible" that Joseph was saying anything other than that Rev 1:6 meant that God the Father had a Father. Am I missing something? I have to be. Did I miss a post addressing zerinus' post?

Nvm, found it! Definitely don't see the connection between John "discovering" and the Rev 1:6. He specifically connects Rev 1:6 with meaning God is the Father of Christ, while not drawing that connection for John's "discovery". Just because it was John that was quoted as having learned of the idea hardly equates to that verse expressing it. B.H. Roberts is irrelevant. Your whole point was that you thought Joseph correctly translated it, then went back on his correct translation and interpreted it incorrectly when he had a new theological idea in his head, and saw that as a verse supporting it (it was a verse supporting it, and he used it, just not in the way you think he did). It doesn't appear to be the case that he went back on his original translation, regardless of the fact that B.H. Roberts was incorrect.

[Xander]

I really don't understand. It's clear to me that Joseph believed that God had a Father, but he definitely didn't interpret Rev 1:6 as directly saying it. "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..." That makes it pretty clear that Joseph was simply saying that Christ (who was/is commonly believed to be God Himself), had a literal Father. From there, if Christ, who was believed to be God, had a Father, then God Himself could have a Father.

Joseph was showing that if Christ had a Father, then the Father could easily (and does) have a Father also. Everything he said is in full harmony with the inspired translation he made. If anything, the inspired translation supports Joseph more. I'm laughing at how it was said it was "indefensible" that Joseph was saying anything other than that Rev 1:6 meant that God the Father had a Father. Am I missing something? I have to be. Did I miss a post addressing zerinus' post?

Yes, it was the context you missed. Zerenius was relying on a published version of the sermon found in Teachings, but that didn't include the extended context where Joseph Smith clearly attributes this doctrine to John the Revelator. Now if you think this doctrine isn't found in Rev 1:6, then where pray tell, can we find it in the Book of Revelation? Because it certainly cannot be denied that Joseph Smith stated quite clearly that it can be found in that book.

[Xander]

I really don't understand. It's clear to me that Joseph believed that God had a Father, but he definitely didn't interpret Rev 1:6 as directly saying it. "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..." That makes it pretty clear that Joseph was simply saying that Christ (who was/is commonly believed to be God Himself), had a literal Father. From there, if Christ, who was believed to be God, had a Father, then God Himself could have a Father.

Joseph was showing that if Christ had a Father, then the Father could easily (and does) have a Father also. Everything he said is in full harmony with the inspired translation he made. If anything, the inspired translation supports Joseph more. I'm laughing at how it was said it was "indefensible" that Joseph was saying anything other than that Rev 1:6 meant that God the Father had a Father. Am I missing something? I have to be. Did I miss a post addressing zerinus' post?

Yes, it was the context you missed. Zerenius was relying on a published version of the sermon found in Teachings, but that didn't include the extended context where Joseph Smith clearly attributes this doctrine to John the Revelator. Now if you think this doctrine isn't found in Rev 1:6, then where pray tell, can we find it in the Book of Revelation? Because it certainly cannot be denied that Joseph Smith stated quite clearly that it can be found in that book.

[Xander]

Nvm, found it! Definitely don't see the connection between John "discovering" and the Rev 1:6. He specifically connects Rev 1:6 with meaning God is the Father of Christ, while not drawing that connection for John's "discovery". Just because it was John that was quoted as having learned of the idea hardly equates to that verse expressing it. B.H. Roberts is irrelevant. Your whole point was that you thought Joseph correctly translated it, then went back on his correct translation and interpreted it incorrectly when he had a new theological idea in his head, and saw that as a verse supporting it (it was a verse supporting it, and he used it, just not in the way you think he did). It doesn't appear to be the case that he went back on his original translation, regardless of the fact that B.H. Roberts was incorrect.

Who are you responding to?

[Xander]

Nvm, found it! Definitely don't see the connection between John "discovering" and the Rev 1:6. He specifically connects Rev 1:6 with meaning God is the Father of Christ, while not drawing that connection for John's "discovery". Just because it was John that was quoted as having learned of the idea hardly equates to that verse expressing it. B.H. Roberts is irrelevant. Your whole point was that you thought Joseph correctly translated it, then went back on his correct translation and interpreted it incorrectly when he had a new theological idea in his head, and saw that as a verse supporting it (it was a verse supporting it, and he used it, just not in the way you think he did). It doesn't appear to be the case that he went back on his original translation, regardless of the fact that B.H. Roberts was incorrect.

Who are you responding to?

[TAO]

If not more? No, the point is, Joseph Smith believed it did refer to more, but no Bible scholar agrees.

My friend, I CFR this, which means, you must provide a reference that he thought this. In other words, I believe your interpretation of what he believed that verse said is incorrect.

That's beside the point.

Nah, tis not. I am fully willing to disagree with scholars. You must provide your own things. Just because a scholar said it doesn't mean it's correct.

But are you saying they are all wrong on this point, and that Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father and God the Grandfather?

Nope. I'm saying that you are interpreting what Joseph said incorrectly.

Not, some or most, but all. Of course you could easily refute this by presenting just one that support Joseph Smith's reading.

My friend, there are some scholars on here who disagree, so nah, it would not be all. There is always exceptions. But as said, you are not providing from where you think this is Joseph Smith's reading of this specific verse. He interpreted it from other verses, but how do you know he interpreted this exact thing from this exact verse.

So what you're saying is Joseph Smith disagreed with his own "inspired" Translation.

No my friend, this is my evidence that you are misreading Joseph Smith. The inspired translation says it means Jesus Christ and God the Father. You say that he said it means something different, when clearly, in the Inspired Translation, it means Jesus Christ and God the Father. Why did you think it meant God the Father and God the Grandfather?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. I am referring to his sermon on the plurality of gods given June 16, 1844, roughly a decade after his "inspired translation" of that verse.

I just read that, and I still can't see how you think that means God the Father, and God the Grandfather. Even in the 5th paragraph, it says it is referring to Jesus Christ and God the Father. So where are you getting the Grandfather thing? It isn't what Joseph is talking about in that sermon. He is talking about Jesus Christ and God the Father. =)

I disagree with what you think Joseph meant by that sermon, which is what is causing the confusion =P.

Best Wishes,

TAO