The Joseph Smith Translation

[TAO]

Duplicate. Hmm... I keep getting Gateway Errors... is someone pinging the board to death or something?

Edited June 27, 2011 by TAO

[Xander]

TAO, you seem to have much catching up to do in this thread. I am basing this not on what's been said in the fifth paragraph, but rather the fifteenth paragraph. Try to find a copy of the full sermon instead of reading the limited version in Teachings.

Joseph Smith started his sermon with Rev 1:6 and half way through he says:

"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?"

That should settle this.

[Xander]

TAO, you seem to have much catching up to do in this thread. I am basing this not on what's been said in the fifth paragraph, but rather the fifteenth paragraph. Try to find a copy of the full sermon instead of reading the limited version in Teachings.

Joseph Smith started his sermon with Rev 1:6 and half way through he says:

"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?"

That should settle this.

[TAO]

TAO, you seem to have much catching up to do in this thread. I am basing this not on what's been said in the fifth paragraph, but rather the fifteenth paragraph. Try to find a copy of the full sermon instead of reading the limited version in Teachings.

Joseph Smith started his sermon with Rev 1:6 and half way through he says:

"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?"

That should settle this.

Again though, that is not what Joseph is applying the verse too. You are connecting a source in verse 1, which should apply to verse 5, to verse 15 instead. This is incorrect.

No, you see, Joseph in verse 5, clearly says that the verse is referring to God the Father, and not his Father.

Later on in the speech however, he draws that John knew that God the Father had a Father. However, he clearly states that this is not the intention of the verse in Revelations - as is shown in verse 5. That is the implication of what John knew, but it is not the meaning of the verse. You are drawing that Joseph thought the verse meant that - but he didn't. He thought that verse meant that John knew that. Which is something different altogether.

In other words, Joseph knows the verse refers to Jesus Christ and God the Father.

However, he says the verse implies that God the Father would have a Father. He does not say it means that though.

That is where I think you are not correct. =/

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited June 27, 2011 by TAO

[Xander]

TAO,

If not Rev 1:6, which verse in Revelation was Joseph Smith referring to then? I have asked this several times and no one seems to have an answer. I think I know why. I give you a 10 on the mental gymnastics but the evidence is overwhelming here.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander

[Mudcat]

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.

Bold mine. Thanks for your thoughts Nack.

This track sets a premise of sorts, that people well before JS came on the scene acted as agents of God to assure that true principles were added to scripture. JS's lack of treatment towards such additions gives force to the approval of such additions during the apostasy.

It does not make the conundrum dissipate.

In the absence of an LDS type of priesthood, God was able to preserve his word, through non-LDS agents.

[TAO]

TAO,

If not Rev 1:6, which verse in Revelation was Joseph Smith referring to then? I have asked this several times and no one seems to have an answer. I think I know why. I give you a 10 on the mental gymnastics but the evidence is overwhelming here.

He was not referring to a verse. He was referring to the implications of a verse. Just as if I say, 'I wish it were cooler today', it implies that I would probably enjoy an ice cream. That is the implication I believe he was talking of - the verse itself doesn't say that - it implies it though. There's another verse I like to use which implies things, in D&C 77:3 - 2a. It reads:

They are ^afigurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing ^bheaven, the ^cparadise of God, the ^dhappiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the ^espirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the ^fbeast, and every other creature which God has created.

To me, this implies that we will use our spiritual body in a similar way as our physical bodies. This implies that eating, walking, and other things might be done the same way they are with the physical body. Of course, this is also an implication, not what the verse says, nor is it about. But it is a conclusion that can be drawn. Doesn't mean it's correct. But drawn it can be, indeed. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited June 27, 2011 by TAO

[David T]

Mudcat,

One doesn't need to be an official prophet - or authorized by one - to recognize and present true principles. There is much literature out there with insights and exhortations I would rank up there in power and truth with that which is found in canonized scripture.

Paul cites pagan poetry to express his point about our relationship with God. The letters attributed to Peter and Jude cite Pseudepigraphical texts and traditions. Current apostles often quote C.S. Lewis and Mother Theresa, and President Monson regularly quotes secular poets and show-tunes.

[TAO]

Bold mine. Thanks for your thoughts Nack.

This track sets a premise of sorts, that people well before JS came on the scene acted as agents of God to assure that true principles were added to scripture. JS's lack of treatment towards such additions gives force to the approval of such additions during the apostasy.

It does not make the conundrum dissipate.

In the absence of an LDS type of priesthood, God was able to preserve his word, through non-LDS agents.

Oh, I agree, I think God was able to preserve much of his words, much of which was of great importance.

But alot, I think, was taken out too. Otherwise there would be no need for a restoration, if there wasn't something to put back in, that had been lost, if you know what I mean =P.

Best Wishes, =)

TAO

[Xander]

He was not referring to a verse. He was referring to the implications of a verse. Just as if I say, 'I wish it were cooler today', it implies that I would probably enjoy an ice cream. That is the implication I believe he was talking of - the verse itself doesn't say that - it implies it though.

The problem with your argument is that it isn't based on anything he actually said, and appears to be designed for the strict purpose of avoiding what he said. You referred to verses 1, 5 and 15 but nowhere in this sermon does he even cite those verses.

He explicitly cited Rev 1:6 as the thesis statement for his sermon, saying, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." In the sixth paragraph he cites the same exact verse again, referring to it as "our text" which implies this is the scripture he wants everyone to keep in mind throughout his sermon. The sixth paragraph goes as follows:

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.

Now if you think he paused and said, "there being a God above... the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" ... then this makes no sense either because this is hardly a new or "stronger" doctrine. Why would apostates be upset over his saying Jesus Christ has a Father in heaven? That's hardly controversial. His purpose was to convince them that there were in fact Gods above the Father of Jesus Christ, and Rev 1:6 was particularly useful because he read as a reference to God the Father's Father. This is apparent to anyone who reads this sermon in context.

So at this point we have Joseph Smith citing Rev 1:6 twice. Then, he begins to argue that Paul and Abraham both believed in the plurality of Gods, and he cites the relevant scriptures for that purpose. After making his argument from the Old Testament, he summarizes in paragraph fifteen, again bringing us back to John the Revelator's scripture:

If Abraham reasoned thus—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.

He doesn't say a Grandfather in heaven is merely "implied". He says a Great-Grandfather in heaven is implied because the scripture explicitly teaches the existence of a Grandfather. And then just before closing his sermon, he cites the same exact verse yet a third time.

But according to you, he wasn't trying to connect this doctrine to that verse at all.

Amazing.

[Mudcat]

After some consideration, I have decided to retire from the thread.

Respectfully to all,

Mudcat

Edited June 27, 2011 by Mudcat

[hungrytrash]

TAO,

If not Rev 1:6, which verse in Revelation was Joseph Smith referring to then? I have asked this several times and no one seems to have an answer. I think I know why. I give you a 10 on the mental gymnastics but the evidence is overwhelming here.

The evidence is overwhelming, but it is overwhelming against you. Joseph Smith probably wasn't referring to a specific verse in referencing that John knew that God had a Father. In the same sermon he explains that Rev 1:6 refers to God being the Father of Jesus Christ. He didn't decide to contradict himself in the same sermon. It's an absurd argument to make, and one huge flawed assumption. Just because John knew it doesn't mean that it says so in the Bible, and especially doesn't mean that the verse which says it was Rev 1:6. It could have been revealed to Joseph. He could have understood that from a number of verses working together. Maybe it was John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." He certainly used that verse to support the idea in other sermons. There are better arguments to make than the one you're making.

[hungrytrash]

The evidence is overwhelming, but it is overwhelming against you. Joseph Smith probably wasn't referring to a specific verse in referencing that John knew that God had a Father. In the same sermon he explains that Rev 1:6 refers to God being the Father of Jesus Christ. He didn't decide to contradict himself in the same sermon. It's an absurd argument to make, and one huge flawed assumption. Just because John knew it doesn't mean that it says so in the Bible, and especially doesn't mean that the verse which says it was Rev 1:6. It could have been revealed to Joseph. He could have understood that from a number of verses working together. Maybe it was John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." He certainly used that verse to support the idea in other sermons. There are better arguments to make than the one you're making.

(Can't wait until I get an edit button!)

I didn't even bring up the implications of the verse, as opposed to the direct meaning, as TAO did. And he is correct.

[hungrytrash]

The problem with your argument is that it isn't based on anything he actually said, and appears to be designed for the strict purpose of avoiding what he said. You referred to verses 1, 5 and 15 but nowhere in this sermon does he even cite those verses.

He explicitly cited Rev 1:6 as the thesis statement for his sermon, saying, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." In the sixth paragraph he cites the same exact verse again, referring to it as "our text" which implies this is the scripture he wants everyone to keep in mind throughout his sermon. The sixth paragraph goes as follows:

Now if you think he paused and said, "there being a God above... the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" ... then this makes no sense either because this is hardly a new or "stronger" doctrine. Why would apostates be upset over his saying Jesus Christ has a Father in heaven? That's hardly controversial. His purpose was to convince them that there were in fact Gods above the Father of Jesus Christ, and Rev 1:6 was particularly useful because he read as a reference to God the Father's Father. This is apparent to anyone who reads this sermon in context.

So at this point we have Joseph Smith citing Rev 1:6 twice. Then, he begins to argue that Paul and Abraham both believed in the plurality of Gods, and he cites the relevant scriptures for that purpose. After making his argument from the Old Testament, he summarizes in paragraph fifteen, again bringing us back to John the Revelator's scripture:

He doesn't say a Grandfather in heaven is merely "implied". He says a Great-Grandfather in heaven is implied because the scripture explicitly teaches the existence of a Grandfather. And then just before closing his sermon, he cites the same exact verse yet a third time.

But according to you, he wasn't trying to connect this doctrine to that verse at all.

Amazing.

There is a comma. "there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". So yes, there was a pause. When the mainstream accepted concept was that Jesus IS God, the idea that God the Father was literally His Father and that they are distinct individuals is a pretty bold doctrine. We are criticized for that belief just as much today, when the origins of the trinity have made the trinity lose a lot of its credibility. You're correct in saying that he wanted to use Rev 1:6 to express the idea that God the Father had a Father. But he never once in the sermon said that the verse itself states that God the Father had a Father. He does the exact opposite and declares the meaning to be that God was the Father of Christ. Then, he draws on the implications of that. If Christ was actually a separate god from God (definitely bold doctrine for the time), and God the Father was His Father, then God the Father could/does have a Father also.

"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 REVELATION, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine."

This line couldn't make it any clearer what Joseph was saying. The only time he directly and explicitly references the verse, he describes it as meaning God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and a distinct god from Him. Your entire argument is shattered by that one line.

[Xander]

Joseph Smith probably wasn't referring to a specific verse in referencing that John knew that God had a Father.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? The whole purpose of his sermon was to convince a recent wave of apostates that his new doctrine was entirely biblical. He spent a great deal arguing from specific verses for the plurality of Gods. And you want us to believe that he suddenly references John the Revelator, but had no biblical passage in mind, even though he explicitly cited Rev 1:6 no less than three times?

In the same sermon he explains that Rev 1:6 refers to God being the Father of Jesus Christ.

Right, but the verse also says God and "His Father." So we have God (the Father) and "his Father (Grandfather)." You obviously don't understand context. Here it is... again:

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.

He said Paul said God was the Father of Jesus, but Paul didn't write Rev 1:6. Nice try though. He then immediately says his objective was to teach a "stronger" doctrine in public (which this was). Now according to you, Joseph Smith considered the fundamental teaching that Heavenly Father is a God, a "stronger" doctrine. I say that is absurd. The "strong" doctrine is that which says God the Father has a Father.

He didn't decide to contradict himself in the same sermon. It's an absurd argument to make, and one huge flawed assumption.

That isn't my argument and the only assumption is yours. Everything I have argued is backed up by the evidence found in the sermon and I have provided specific citations proving it. All you have done is offer a spun explanation as to what you think the sermon meant while failing to understand the argument (pointing out that "God" in Rev 1:6 is Christ's Father, hardly helps your case as all you're doing is ignoring the next three words "and his father")

Just because John knew it doesn't mean that it says so in the Bible, and especially doesn't mean that the verse which says it was Rev 1:6.

It does when he cites the verse three times within the context of this doctrine, and then explicitly attributes it to the author of the verse in question.

It could have been revealed to Joseph.

Again, this is desperation and it is getting pretty ridiculous. He didn't say he knew this via revelation. That would defeat the whole purpose of his sermon, which was to show the apostates that his claims were scriptural. He makes this perfectly clear throughout his sermon. Just take a look:

"I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves...Some say I do not interpret the scripture the same as they do...I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct...If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads... Oh, poor, blind apostates! did you never think of this before? These are the quotations that the apostates take from the scriptures....the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods....The scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind... I will refer to another scripture... I have selected this text for that express purpose... this is in accordance with the New Testament...Search the scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy."

So it makes no sense for him to suddenly throw in something that he claims to know via revelation alone, since the apostates he was addressing didn't trust his revelations anymore. He tried to win them back by showing them he was a "biblical" prophet, and he could only do that by sticking to the scriptures.

The evidence if irrefutable. All you're doing here is showing your unwillingness to admit being wrong. How much more evidence do you need? At this point I'm guessing no amount would suffice. Joseph Smith used Rev 1:6 to teach that God the Father has a Father. He explicitly stated this doctrine twice in his short sermon, and he cited the same scripture three times within that context, and even goes further to make explicit that this was something John the Revelator "discovered." He doesn't say he discovered John's discovery via revelation. He said it was scriptural.

He could have understood that from a number of verses working together. Maybe it was John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." He certainly used that verse to support the idea in other sermons.

Again, you're focusing on what he didn't say, while I'm focusing on what he actually said.

There are better arguments to make than the one you're making.

Then prove it. All you have done is dismiss it, along with the evidence.

[Xander]

This line couldn't make it any clearer what Joseph was saying. The only time he directly and explicitly references the verse, he describes it as meaning God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and a distinct god from Him. Your entire argument is shattered by that one line.

As I already showed in the post above, you haven't properly understood the argument. No one said "God" in Rev 1:6 referred to anyone other than the Father of Jesus Christ.

I'm not one of those guys you're going to be able to beat a straw man over, trust me on this. That "line" refutes nothing that I have said, and it certainly refutes nothing Joseph Smith said in his sermon. Yes, he used that verse to argue that we all become kings unto God, but that first goes on to say "and his father" which Joseph Smith didn't cite in this instance because it was irrelevant to his point about theosis. But this doesn't change the fact that he used the verse to argue for a Heavenly Grandfather.

And no, Joseph Smith didn't speak in commas, not that this matters anyway since an emphasis in the word "above" would require a comma and still make the point that there is a God above God the Father. The context of the sermon and his insistence that John the Revelator said God the Father had a Father, tells us exactly what he meant by this. It isn't just a wild coincidence that the only scripture he cited is the only scripture in the entire Bible that could plausibly be used to argue God the Father has the Father. The ambiguity of the KJV allows that interpretation.

For you to argue that Joseph Smith only meant to say he prayed at some point and God, for whatever wild reason, decided to "reveal" to him the fact at some point in the past John knew of this doctrine too, but didn't record it in the scriptures... well, I'll put mine up against that piece of silliness any day of the week.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander

[hungrytrash]

As I already showed in the post above, you haven't properly understood the argument. No one said "God" in Rev 1:6 referred to anyone other than the Father of Jesus Christ.

I'm not one of those guys you're going to be able to beat a straw man over, trust me on this. That "line" refutes nothing that I have said, and it certainly refutes nothing Joseph Smith said in his sermon. Yes, he used that verse to argue that we all become kings unto God, but that first goes on to say "and his father" which Joseph Smith didn't cite in this instance because it was irrelevant to his point about theosis. But this doesn't change the fact that he used the verse to argue for a Heavenly Grandfather.

And no, Joseph Smith didn't speak in commas, not that this matters anyway since an emphasis in the word "above" would require a comma and still make the point that there is a God above God the Father. The context of the sermon and his insistence that John the Revelator said God the Father had a Father, tells us exactly what he meant by this. It isn't just a wild coincidence that the only scripture he cited is the only scripture in the entire Bible that could plausibly be used to argue God the Father has the Father. The ambiguity of the KJV allows that interpretation.

For you to argue that Joseph Smith only meant to say he prayed at some point and God, for whatever wild reason, decided to "reveal" to him the fact at some point in the past John knew of this doctrine too, but didn't record it in the scriptures... well, I'll put mine up against that piece of silliness any day of the week.

I left the option option to Joseph having it revealed to him, but I don't think it was out of the blue. I also left it open that he could have gotten it from multiple verses, and showed an example of one. My point was that Joseph defined the meaning of Rev 1:6 in the sermon, and that he didn't go back on that meaning. It is an assumption to say that because Joseph knew that John knew it, that it had to have been referring to that verse. Even if that is the case, though, I guess that's fine. If John knew that God was the Father of Christ, he could have easily used the same logic (and I'm sure it was revealed to him) to come to the conclusion that God had a Father.

Then I'm not sure what your point is at all. He explained what the verse literally said, which wasn't that God had a Father. He did use the verse to show a multiplicity of Gods, which he used to show that God had a Father. If that's what you think too, where is the argument? I'm completely unaware apparently. My only point in all this was that Joseph didn't make the inspired translation, then revert to the original because his theology changed.

P.S. Joseph didn't speak in commas, but the person writing down what he wrote placed one there to clarify the way Joseph said it, or the way he meant it.

[Xander]

I left the option option to Joseph having it revealed to him, but I don't think it was out of the blue.

If you want to maintain your argument has "overwhelming evidence" then this needs to be more than just an option. It is your only option.

I also left it open that he could have gotten it from multiple verses, and showed an example of one.

Why on earth would you try to extract this doctrine from multiple verses he didn't cite, while avoiding a verse he cited three times, and a verse that provides this doctrine via the ambiguous reading of the KJV?

My point was that Joseph defined the meaning of Rev 1:6 in the sermon, and that he didn't go back on that meaning.

I never said he "went back on" anything and my argument doesn't require him to do so.

It is an assumption to say that because Joseph knew that John knew it, that it had to have been referring to that verse.

It isn't an assumption at all. He didn't merely say he knew it, he said he knew it like he knew EVERYTHING in that sermon: Because it was supported by scripture. He told us what scripture he had in mind three times. He referred to it as "our text" even after he started talking about other scriptures. Rev 1:6 was always "our text" as it was the thesis statement and the text he used to open up the sermon.

Even if that is the case, though, I guess that's fine. If John knew that God was the Father of Christ, he could have easily used the same logic (and I'm sure it was revealed to him) to come to the conclusion that God had a Father.

But he never "reasoned" this. He said the scripture explicitly stated this. He only said it would be reasoned that the Grandfather had a Great-Grandfather. But Christ's Grandfather was perfectly clear in Rev 1:6, "our text."

Then I'm not sure what your point is at all.

My point is he got it wrong, and that is one of the reasons I no longer believe he was a true prophet.

He explained what the verse literally said, which wasn't that God had a Father.

I think there is a reason you're relying on commentary instead of direct citations. The text doesn't support yoru argument or else you'd be using it to do so.

He did use the verse to show a multiplicity of Gods, which he used to show that God had a Father. If that's what you think too, where is the argument?

He based this doctrine on the ambiguous reading of the KJV, which has since been corrected. Corrected by scholars, not by the one man who should have known it was an erroneous reading.

P.S. Joseph didn't speak in commas, but the person writing down what he wrote placed one there to clarify the way Joseph said it, or the way he meant it.

The comma is irrelevant.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xander

[Lachoneus]

It isn't an assumption at all. He didn't merely say he knew it, he said he knew it like he knew EVERYTHING in that sermon: Because it was supported by scripture.

Actually, he said that "Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven" (paragraph 10). He also said, "I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant" (paragraph 26). Although he said that he was teaching doctrines contained in the scriptures, he admitted that he did not interpret those scriptures the same as others did. Instead, his interpretation and understanding of the scriptures came by means of revelation from the Holy Ghost (paragraph 10).

He told us what scripture he had in mind three times. He referred to it as "our text" even after he started talking about other scriptures. Rev 1:6 was always "our text" as it was the thesis statement and the text he used to open up the sermon.

Revelation 1:6 was his thesis statement, the "text" for this discourse as he called it, but this verse was not the passage "he used to open up the sermon." He actually opened this discourse by reading Revelation 3. You might want to read that chapter and see how it opens up your understanding of the meaning of Revelation 1:6.

But he never "reasoned" this. He said the scripture explicitly stated this. He only said it would be reasoned that the Grandfather had a Great-Grandfather. But Christ's Grandfather was perfectly clear in Rev 1:6, "our text."

He specifically says he "reasoned" this and never says the scripture "explicitly stated this."

I want to read the text to you myself--“I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us,” and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as [the God of] His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to [it] them."

If Abraham reasoned thus--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.

(paragraphs 13-15)

Notice that he says he "learned" this principle not from John or Revelation 1:6, but from Abraham and the papyri he possessed.

He based this doctrine on the ambiguous reading of the KJV, which has since been corrected. Corrected by scholars, not by the one man who should have known it was an erroneous reading.

Joseph "corrected" the ambiguous text of Revelation 1:6 when he prepared the text of the JST in 1830-1833 to show that this verse refers to a single deity. He repeats the corrected version of this verse in a paraphrase of this verse in paragraph 7.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Lachoneus

[Lightbearer]

I've heard the idea that Joseph Smith did more than just restore lost pieces of biblical text, but is there any textual evidence from old bible manuscripts that show that Joseph actually did restore things that are lost?

Inasmuch as there are no "originals" or we have no way of proving if they are indeed originals that they are not copies... how could we possibly know unless it was revealed to us from the same source (God Himself)? Has anyone ever found the original stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written? All the Bible scholars in the world do not amount to anything compared to the light of revelation from heaven. Why trust in "old manuscripts" that could only be confirmed by revelation as to their validity. We as LDS do not put our trust in the tangled vines of tradition or in the "arm of flesh" meaning mans wisdom and knowledge for spiritual truths. From what I have read of the JST it sheds enormous light on many passages in the Bible which otherwise we only "see through a glass darkly" and so yes the Joseph Smith Translation is of inestimable value and yes I do believe the Books of Moses and Abraham were accounts of actual events that occured to those great prophets and were lost to a wicked and corrupt world that cannot stand the light of truth.

[Commander]

nothing really that confirms it - probably some things that cast doubt on a literal correction of the translation.

[Xander]

Nothing really left to say here, as I'm only repeating myself at this point. The evidence is clear. Joseph Smith believed John the Revelator taught that God the Father has a Father and he used Rev 1:6 as his text.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nothing really left to say here, as I'm only repeating myself at this point. The evidence is clear. Joseph Smith believed John the Revelator taught that God the Father has a Father and he used Rev 1:6 as his text.

We appreciate your opinion on the matter. We just disagree.

[TAO]

The problem with your argument is that it isn't based on anything he actually said, and appears to be designed for the strict purpose of avoiding what he said.

The problem with your argument is that it is reading too much into what he said. You are taking 'John knows X' and transforming it into 'John knows X is stated in this verse', an then transforming that into 'Joseph taught that'. That isn't correct though. No, as I said, implications are not the same things as meanings of the verses.

You referred to verses 1, 5 and 15 but nowhere in this sermon does he even cite those verses.

I am not referring to Revelations. I am referring to the verses of the Sermon itself. Verse 1, where Rev 1:6 is stated is tied in with verse 5, which shows it's meaning. Verse 15 says that John knew this, but it does not say it is from Rev 1:6, and it clearly says in verse 5 that it is not the meaning. Therefore, the only path I can think to take is that Rev 1:6 implies that, and that is where Joseph uses the support. But he does not say the verse means such. He says it implies such.

He explicitly cited Rev 1:6 as the thesis statement for his sermon, saying, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." In the sixth paragraph he cites the same exact verse again, referring to it as "our text" which implies this is the scripture he wants everyone to keep in mind throughout his sermon. The sixth paragraph goes as follows:

Again my friend, though, you are putting words into Joseph's mouth by saying he means the verses mean that. Again, implications versus meaning. When a girl (if you are a guy) says 'Thank You', it's meaning is little but it can mean a whole lot more. That is where you are not getting things right.

Now if you think... *lots of stuff* ...scripture:

Again, you are not getting my point. I am not arguing that Joseph didn't teach the pluarlity of Gods. I am saying that he did not say the verse meant that. I am saying that the verse implies such, but it is not what was being referred to in the verse.

He doesn't say a Grandfather in heaven is merely "implied". He says a Great-Grandfather in heaven is implied because the scripture explicitly teaches the existence of a Grandfather. And then just before closing his sermon, he cites the same exact verse yet a third time.

No my friend, you are misreading it yet again. He says that because of other scriptures that are listed. Not Revelations 1:6. Again, if you want to see what Joseph thought the literal meaning of the verse is, read the JST, it refers to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. But the father-son relationship implies that there is something more above it. It does not mean it - it suggests it - and Joseph picked up on it =).

But according to you, he wasn't trying to connect this doctrine to that verse at all.

Amazing.

No, you are wrong - I am saying that he did not say the verse meant that. He said it implied that. It is related to this verse - but it isn't related in the way you think it is quite.

Sorryz I must disagree, =P

Best Wishes,

TAO

BTW, Lachoneus's post is good, better than mine, read it =).

Edited June 28, 2011 by TAO

[why me]

No.

I'm talking about virtually every Bible scholar on the planet. No one thinks Rev 1:6 refers to God the Father's Father, including Mormon Bible scholars.

Yet, Joseph Smith based an entire doctrine on this misunderstanding. This generally isn't something we might expect from true Prophets. Their job is to tell us what the scriptures mean, not what they don't mean.

Biblical scholars tend to search for evidence which support their own view on the topic, particularly when they are coming from a particular faith. Thus, a protestant scholar will give a different interpretation than a catholic scholar but what we do have is the bible and a person who wrote that verse. I have no idea how one can give an honest interpretation of a verse without asking personally the person who wrote the verse.

When one enrolls in an university to study religion as a major, one just may come out an atheist.

Edited June 28, 2011 by why me