The Joseph Smith Translation

[Xander]

And points out how important context is rather than the critics' favorite method of pick and choose.

So you're a comedian, now?

David conceded most of the points I made, based on the contextual argument I made. It took awhile, but he eventually came around and was reduced to saying it didn't really matter to him anyway since he can accept that Joseph Smith wasn't perfect.

I respect David's conclusion but it certainly isn't based on "context" and I don't think he ever said it was. At the very least it disagrees with the argument presented by TAO, who cannot seem to concede the fact that Joseph Smith's views evolved through time.

Thank you Deborah, for showing us just how willing you are to leap to the standard conclusions about the "critics" before you even bother to read the discussion. It explains a lot, I assure you.

[Xander]

Deb, since you seem to have only read what kolipoki highlighted in the earlier portions of the debate, let me show you what kolipoki also provided, but didn't highlight.

You’ve brought up a really good point. I won’t deny that it appears that Joseph Smith believed that John the Revelator taught in Revelation 1:6 that God the Father has a Father.

I also won’t deny the fact that I it appears that Joseph Smith was wrong.

I believe that Joseph was wrong to assume that John the Revelator wrote the book of Revelation (I don’t believe that he did), and I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong when he believed that John taught that God the Father has a Father in Rev. 1:6.

I do not believe that Joseph Smith was wrong in suggesting that God the Father has a Father, nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong to take Revelation 1:6 and expand upon its meaning above the original author’s intent.

So how is David correcting me via context when he essentially agreed with the key points I was arguing?

[Minos]

So you're a comedian, now?

David conceded most of the points I made, based on the contextual argument I made. It took awhile, but he eventually came around and was reduced to saying it didn't really matter to him anyway since he can accept that Joseph Smith wasn't perfect.

I respect David's conclusion but it certainly isn't based on "context" and I don't think he ever said it was. At the very least it disagrees with the argument presented by TAO, who cannot seem to concede the fact that Joseph Smith's views evolved through time.

Thank you Deborah, for showing us just how willing you are to leap to the standard conclusions about the "critics" before you even bother to read the discussion. It explains a lot, I assure you.

This is unprovoked and just plain rude. Insulting Deborah, of all people, instead of making your case is not going to win friends and influence the posters on this board.

[Xander]

Unprovoked? Deborah, "of all people" (whoever she is) summarized my rather friendly exchange with David Bokovoy by saying I was a typical critic who cherry-picks and ignores context. And since that is a gross misrepresentation of what took place in that debate, her desire to make friends escaped me. I didn't engage her. She engaged me with insult, and I have made my case as carefully and thoroughly as humanly possible on this thread without attacking anyone. Anything that can possibly be interpreted as insult in my posts, are all responses to provoked aggression.

I wish you guys had an ignore feature.

[Nemesis]

Unprovoked? Deborah, "of all people" (whoever she is) summarized my rather friendly exchange with David Bokovoy by saying I was a typical critic who cherry-picks and ignores context. And since that is a gross misrepresentation of what took place in that debate, her desire to make friends escaped me. I didn't engage her. She engaged me with insult, and I have made my case as carefully and thoroughly as humanly possible on this thread without attacking anyone. Anything that can possibly be interpreted as insult in my posts, are all responses to provoked aggression.

I wish you guys had an ignore feature.

Kevin this is why its important to use the report button. We get reports, look at it for what it is and make the call. Please use it instead so it doesn't get to this level. Thanks to the poster for reporting the context better to us. We should have an ignore feature, click on the moniker or go to usercp and put person in block list. Here is the link http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=members&area=ignoredusers

Nemesis

[Deborah]

Xander you kept insisting previously that even Bokovoy agreed with your conclusion and I stated I wanted to see what he says on the issue. kolipoki09 provided that. You left out for example this statement "I’m not willing at this stage to accept that Joseph was wrong. He might have been, but I’m not convinced that A. Joseph said for certain that Revelation 1:6 was “translated correctly,” and B. That the KJV is technically translated incorrectly." Or this one "So while I accept your position that the original author of Revelation 1:6 did not mean to suggest that God the Father has a Father, I reject your conclusion that Joseph was wrong. The verse is translated correctly and I appreciate the way Joseph Smith expanded it." This puts a different light on just stating repeatedly how Bokovoy agreed with you.

And I and many others agree with Bokovoy that the prophet’s views evolved as he gained inspiration from on high “line upon line precept upon precept." As we would expect them to.

[Deborah]

I will also add that my statement about critics was a general statement, and one that we have seen time and again.

As for context I was of course referring to the whole context of the discussion with the caveats highlighted in the quotes.

[TAO]

Xander, it doesn't look like you are willing to see what I am saying, so I am just going to end it there. I explained to you my reasons behind believing what I believe. It is up to you to decide whether you think it is right or wrong, but as for me, I think I'm right (obviously).

So rather than continue this debate, as it will go nowhere, I'll just end it here.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited June 30, 2011 by TAO

[Xander]

Xander you kept insisting previously that even Bokovoy agreed with your conclusion and I stated I wanted to see what he says on the issue.

No, I said he agreed with me that Rev 1:6 didn't teach a Grandfather God. That was the only conclusion I initially said he agreed with.

kolipoki09 provided that.

Proving I was correct.

You left out for example this statement "I’m not willing at this stage to accept that Joseph was wrong. He might have been, but I’m not convinced that A. Joseph said for certain that Revelation 1:6 was “translated correctly,”

Because that was irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't believe Rev 1:6 teaches a Grandfather God. Every apologist is dealing with this in their own way. Some here have said that the verse does teach that, and that scholars who say otherwise are incorrect. That was the reason I mentioned Bokovoy because even LDS Bible scholars agree that Rev 1:6 doesn't teach this. Bokovoy's way of reconciling this with Joseph Smith's belief is irrelevant to that point. I already had my debate with Bokovoy. I know what he believes. I raised the issue again to see how others would handle it.

and B. That the KJV is technically translated incorrectly."

Bokovoy clearly changed his mind throughout the debate, but this statement above is irrelevant since my overall point was Joseph Smith believed Rev 1:6 taught this and he was wrong for doing so. By the end of the debate Bokovoy conceded that point when he said: "I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong when he believed that John taught that God the Father has a Father in Rev. 1:6."

Thanks to Kolipoki for looking up that debate and pulling this up. Had I remembered that Bokovoy conceded this much, I probably would have mentioned it earlier in this thread. This debate took place years ago, and I have been going from memory.

Or this one "So while I accept your position that the original author of Revelation 1:6 did not mean to suggest that God the Father has a Father, I reject your conclusion that Joseph was wrong. The verse is translated correctly and I appreciate the way Joseph Smith expanded it."

Deborah, you're citing Bokovoy's original arguments, whereas I am referring to his conclusion. His view changed throughout the debate. Again, he concluded, and I quote: "I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong when he believed that John taught that God the Father has a Father in Rev. 1:6."

This puts a different light on just stating repeatedly how Bokovoy agreed with you.

So you interpret my single instance of saying Bokovoy agreed with a single conclusion, as me "just stating repeatedly how Bokovoy agrees" with me? I'm I gonna get in trouble again for pointing out your clear misrepresentation of this fact?

Kolipoki misunderstood what I initially said about what Bokovoy agreed with. I responded to it twice with:

Kevin said: That isn't what I said. I said I know of at least one Mormon Bible scholars who agrees that Rev 1:6 doesn't refer to God the Father's Father. David Bokovoy

Kevin said: 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.

And now you're taking it a step further by saying I've "repeatedly" claimed Bokovoy has been agreeing with me, as if I said he agreed with everything I said.

So in summary, I initially mentioned David Bokovoy once. I said he agreed with one of my conclusions.

Kolipoki dug up the debate and proved that not only was I right about this, but that Bokovoy actually agreed with my several points, including my primary argument that Joseph Smith was wrong to believe Rev 1:6 referred to a Grandfather God.

In the meantime, you keep acting like I'm making stuff up. The context proves my case, it doesn't contradict it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Kevin this is why its important to use the report button. We get reports, look at it for what it is and make the call. Please use it instead so it doesn't get to this level. Thanks to the poster for reporting the context better to us. We should have an ignore feature, click on the moniker or go to usercp and put person in block list. Here is the link http://www.mormondia...ea=ignoredusers

Nemesis

I've never reported anyone because it takes a lot to offend me, and I also know what a hassle it is for mods to keep having to deal with endless reports. But if reporting is what it will take to get some mods to pay attention to the posts that I'm responding to, I'll go ahead and start now.

I'll also take advantage of the ignore feature, which should help.

[kolipoki09]

Kolipoki misunderstood what I initially said about what Bokovoy agreed with.

I completely agree. I'm glad we were able to clear things up.

However, I think the strength of Bokovoy's argument lies here:

Throughout the Bible, inspired authors do precisely what Joseph Smith did by taking an inspired text and expanding the verse via divine revelation to mean more than what the original author meant. After all, if Joseph is “wrong” for using this technique, then so is every other biblical prophet who refashioned an earlier text to fit a different context.

Was Matthew “wrong” when he took Isaiah’s prophetic judgment “behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel” and reinterpreted the text as a prophecy of Jesus Christ?

What about when Matthew took out of its original context Jeremiah’s text “in Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not.” Was Matthew wrong on this occasion since we can easily establish that this event in Jesus’ life is not what Jeremiah had in mind?

Personally, I expect a true prophet to expand upon texts in a way that extends the scripture above and beyond what the original author meant.

I'm particularly reminded of Matthew's use of Micah 5:2 referring to Christ's birth in Bethlehem when in all likelihood Christ wasn't born in Bethlehem, nor does Micah refer explicitly to Bethlehem as being the foretold birthplace of the Messiah.

Because of this, I'm willing to accept Joseph Smith's use of Rev. 1:6 as an expansion upon what the original author (if it was John or not) said, to fit a new context in a new dispensation. The idea of Elohim having a Father does not bother me, but since historical Mormonism speaks so little about it, I don't know much beyond that.

The challenge in a broader context is really how we define what a "prophet" is or is not. I can't say I blame you for not accepting Joseph Smith as being one, given the complexities and nuances of his life. But I think the context of his life is broad enough that both of us are perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree.

I apologize to you Xander for being a bit rash earlier. I spoke presumptuously. I don't however, apologize to Rob Bowman.

[Xander]

However, I think the strength of Bokovoy's argument lies here:

The problem is that while it is true prophets throughout history didn't always confine themselves to revealed scripture, it is clear that Joseph Smith most certainly did in this case. Joseph Smith wasn't "expanding" the verse because that would have defeated his stated purpose of sticking to the scriptures. He was claiming Rev 1:6 explicitly argued that God the Father has a Father, and ultimately Bokovoy agreed with this. If anything came from expansion it was just the implication for a Great-Grandfather and a Great-Great-Grandfather God.

Using Matthew begs a question too, because we don't know that Matthew authored Matthew and we don't have the original manuscripts. If this were an LDS text, the apologists would demand an original manuscript before jumping to conclusions about what a Prophet got wrong (i.e. BoA apologetics).

PS: There is no need to apologize. Genuine misunderstanding is hardly a serious crime.

[kolipoki09]

Using Matthew begs a question too, because we don't know that Matthew authored Matthew and we don't have the original manuscripts. If this were an LDS text, the apologists would demand an original manuscript before jumping to conclusions about what a Prophet got wrong (i.e. BoA apologetics).

And since we don't have Matthew's original account, what is the difference when compared to Bullock's second-hand account of the Sermon in the Grove published long after Joseph Smith's death?

In light of this, I'm reminded of something Blake Ostler said years ago:

Latter-day Saints believe that the biblical text constitutes ancient revelation and that God has resumed (with Joseph Smith) and continues to give (through Smith's successors) revelation in our day. Mormons read the ancient revelations in the light of what they take to be God's total, especially his contemporary, revelation.

While we certainly can't argue that John explicitly taught that Elohim had a Father, I'm not entirely convinced based on Bullock's account that Joseph believed John explicitly taught it either - given the lack of a word-for-word account. Unlike Joseph's other writings, which often have quite a bit of overlap (even in second-hand accounts) Bullock's notes did not always harmonize with those of his contemporary scribes, who next to him recorded the same events. In this case however, Bullock's account is the only one we have (with the exception of brief mentions by George Laub and the McIntire Minute Book).

According to Bullock's own transcription:

378It is altogr. correct in the translatn. 3-now you know that of late some have sprung up & apostat. & they declare that Pro bel[ieves]. in a plurality of Gods 4-&c. & behold a very great secret they cry it has been my intentn. to take up this subjt. & show what my Faith is in the matter-I have contemplated the saying of Je[sus] as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be at his 2nd. coming & if it rains I’ll preach-the plurarlity of Gods-I have selected this text I wish to declare I have allways-& in all congregats. when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 years-I have always decld. God to be a distinct personage-J.C. a sep. & distinct pers from God the Far. the H.G was a distinct personage 5 & or Sp & these 3 constit. 3 distinct personages & 3 Gods-if this is in accordance with the New Test.-lo & behold we have 3 Gods any how & they are plural any how-our text says

378 – 379the apost[les] have disc[overe]d. that there were Gods above-God was the Far. of our Ld. J.C. 6-my object was to preach the Scrip-& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.-I am bold to declare I have taut. all the strong doctrines publicly-& always stronger that what I preach in private-John was one of the men & the apos. declare they were made K. & P. unto God the Fatr. of our Ld. J.C. 7 it reads just so hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any doctrine-it is all over the face of the Bible, it stands beyond the power of controversy-a wayfaring man tho a fool need not fail-Paul says there are gods many & Lords many 8-I want to set it in a plain simple manner-but to us there is but one God pertaining to us, in all thro all, 9-but if J. Smith says there is Gods many & Lds. many they cry away with him crucify him mankind verily say that the Scrip s with them-Search the Script & & they testify of things that apostates wod blaspheme-Paul if Jo Smith is a blasphemer you are-I say there are Gods many & Lds many but to us only one & we are to be in subject to that one & no man can limit the bounds, or the eternal existence of eternal time-hath he beheld the e[terna]l. world. & is he authd. to say that there is only God he makes himself a fool-& there is an end of his career in knowledge he cannot obtn. all knowledge for he has sealed up the gate to

McIntire seems to be the only one here even referencing Rev. 1:6

383Sunday the 16th of June 1844 Gen. Joseph Smiths Last public Discorce on Doctrine he comenced By Reading Rev. 1st Ch 6 verse-”And hath made us Kings & priests unto God & his father["] &c He then preceded to show the plurality of Gods By Refering to the 1st Gen. as in the origanel Hebrew-that it Read that in the Begining the Head Gods organized the Earth & the heavens 58 &-and that God was a distinct in of himself & the Son also was a distinct Personage But in the image of the Father-he quoted the 17th of St John 20, 21, 22, 23 that the apostles & the Desciples may all agree in one-or be agreed in the one principal as thou father & me are agred-Jesus said that all things that He saw the father do he did-and also the 82 psalm 1st verse God standith in the Congragations of the Mighty; he Judgeth among the Gods-

Given McIntire is writing this apparently after June 27, 1844, what are the odds that he correctly transcribed what Joseph actually said? Nearly two weeks ago I attended the Richard Bushman Symposium. I took about a page of notes during the day. Even then, just patching together a marginal transcription of what Bushman actually said when comparing my notes to that of my neighbor's would be extremely difficult, if not insurmountable. In light of the transcriptions of the sermon provided above, are you willing to reconsider whether or not Joseph said that John explicitly said that Elohim had a father in Rev. 1:6?

Edited June 30, 2011 by kolipoki09

[Deborah]

No, I said he agreed with me that Rev 1:6 didn't teach a Grandfather God. That was the only conclusion I initially said he agreed with.

Yes, but by not including the rest of the discussion you changed the nature of the dialogue. That is what is meant by context. Bokovoy may have agreed that that specific verse didn't teach a Grandfather God but he didn't disagree that Joseph was wrong in concluding what he did.

You earlier quoted this: "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 think the word "reasoned" is key to Joseph making his conclusions. This is a rational argument based on the scriptures talking about a Father and a Son and the eternal nature of man. I don't disagree that Rev 1:6 doesn't specifically state that God the Father has a father, but it is a reasonable conclusion if one has already seen an expanded view of eternity.

You made the statement

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?"

Joseph in the sermon was preaching the eternal nature of man and Revelation supports this by saying "and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever." That was the point of the sermon. Half-way through he discourses on the logical assumption that if Jesus has a Father and if he did only what he saw his Father do would his father not also have a father. I don't see that Joseph was using this specific verse to show that. It may have been the starting point for the sermon but hardly the definitive statement on what Joseph was saying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You made the statement Joseph in the sermon was preaching the eternal nature of man and Revelation supports this by saying "and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever." That was the point of the sermon. Half-way through he discourses on the logical assumption that if Jesus has a Father and if he did only what he saw his Father do would his father not also have a father. I don't see that Joseph was using this specific verse to show that. It may have been the starting point for the sermon but hardly the definitive statement on what Joseph was saying.

Once again Deb (You don't mind if I call you that? I have like an infinity of that at scout camp.) has hit the nail on the head.