LDS Bible Videos Discussion

[theplains]

The JST is also different from the Greek (Green's Hebrew/Greek/English Interlinear).

The film's producer didn't follow the script too closely.

In verse 5, "His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it". I only saw Mary say this to one servant.

In verse 6, "And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or

three firkins apiece". Each waterpot was two or three firkins apiece. If we follow wikipedia, a firkin is about 41 liters, so each

waterpot contained about 80-120 liters. Did you see the size of that one container that was filled?

In verse 7, "Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim". Multiple waterpots and

multiple people filling them up. The video only shows one.

Then in verses 9-10, "The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth

set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now". The

video ignores this and depicts the governor directly speaking to Mary, not the bridegroom. It also seems to give Mary an elevated

status, as she basically sits next to the governor as if she was someone of high class.

Regards,

Jim

[David T]

They just posted Jesus' baptism. I really like it.

I did find it surprising that they gave John a clear baptismal prayer, repeated at least twice:

"I baptize thee, having authority from the almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him."

Edited May 3, 2012 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

That is a really good video. Actors, location, production, everything. I love the Dove flitting in and then dissolving away. Good stuff. If these are to be used as interfaith tools, then the edits are indeed kinda annoying, but overall I'm quite pleased with the work being done.

[David T]

That is a really good video. Actors, location, production, everything. I love the Dove flitting in and then dissolving away. Good stuff. If these are to be used as interfaith tools, then the edits are indeed kinda annoying, but overall I'm quite pleased with the work being done.

Agreed on all counts, Jeremy.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't understand why, among faithful Latter-day Saints, there should be any objection to using content from the JST as opposed to the KJV, since the former is regarded as a more correct translation.

I'm not so sure about that. The KJV is canonized. The JST (except for a few passages in the Pearl of Great Price) isn't. Plus, Joseph Smith mistakenly translated Matthew 26 twice and came up with two different translations. Which one would we use?

I take the JST as Joseph Smith's inspired amplification of the bible, which does not necessarily have anything to do with some pristine "original" text.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not so sure about that. The KJV is canonized.

The Eighth Article of Faith is also canonized (the Articles of Faith are part of the Pearl of Great Price) and it acknowledges errors in the Bible as it has been transmitted to us today. This includes the King James Version.

Joseph Smith said, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 9-10).

From this, I conclude that the errors in translation are predominately omissions as opposed to inaccuracy in wording. Many of these omissons have been restored by means of the Joseph Smith Translation.

The JST (except for a few passages in the Pearl of Great Price) isn't [canonized].

The "few passages in the Pearl of Great Price" amount to the entire Book of Moses (JST Genesis 1 through Genesis 8:18) and Joseph Smith - Matthew (JST Matthew 24).

Beyond that, portions of the Doctrine and Covenants are revelations received during the Prophet Joseph Smith's new translation of the Bible and thus spring therefrom. These include sections 76, 77, 86, and 91, and parts of 107 and 132.

The JST is not canonized because it has never been published in its entirety by the Church. The reason for this has to do with details in Church history that I won't go into here.

However, in more recent times, prior to the publication of the current LDS edition of the King James Bible, scholars from BYU were allowed to go to the RLDS archives and thoroughly examine and verify the content of the JST manuscripts. Thereafter, excerpts from the JST were included in footnotes and an appendix in the current LDS edition of the Bible, and the Brethren gave their blessing for Church members to quote freely from the JST in talks, lessons and other LDS discourse. For me, that's good enough to regard the JST as being at least as authoritative as the King James Bible.

Plus, Joseph Smith mistakenly translated Matthew 26 twice and came up with two different translations. Which one would we use?

Why not both?

Regarding this, Professor Kent Jackson has written:

As we researched the JST manuscripts, my student assistant Peter Jasinski discovered that Joseph Smith translated Matthew 26 twice, each with the help of a different scribe. The translations were done several months apart, and it appears that the Prophet simply forgot that he had translated the chapter already. We studied the duplicate translations carefully, believing that they would help us understand the nature of the JST better. The two new translations are not identical; in fact, there are considerable differences. The rewordings for clarity and modernizations of archaic language were done without great consistency, with both of the translations contributing in unique ways. For example, in one of the translations, Joseph Smith modernized most of the King James pronouns, but he changed few in the other.

The most important changes were those that introduced new content or changed a verse’s meaning. What we found when we examined those changes amazed us and added to our appreciation of Joseph Smith and his inspired work. Although some content changes were unique to one new translation or the other, the majority were found in both. Yet the new thoughts the Prophet added to the two translations were rarely expressed in the same words, and often they were not even inserted at the same locations in the text. In other words, he made the same corrections but not in the same words or the same places.

Why were the two inspired translations of the same chapter not identical? Joseph Smith taught that when the Holy Ghost gives us “pure intelligence,” it serves in “expanding the mind [and] enlightening the understanding” with “sudden strokes of ideas.” Our conclusion was as follows: “Perhaps it would be reasonable to propose that as Joseph Smith worked his way through Matthew 26, dictating the text to his scribe Sidney Rigdon in spring 1831 and again to his scribe John Whitmer the next fall, impressions came to his mind in the form of pure intelligence, enlightened understanding, and sudden strokes of ideas—but not necessarily in exact words. Responding to those impressions, the Prophet himself supplied the words that corrected the problem or emphasized the point or otherwise caused the verse to express the ideas that the Lord wanted it to communicate.” This suggestion may explain why the duplicate translations are verbally different.

I take the JST as Joseph Smith's inspired amplification of the bible, which does not necessarily have anything to do with some pristine "original" text.

Debatable though this is, whether the JST conforms in every particular to "some pristine original text" is of no great moment. What is important to me is that it comes closer to conveying the mind of God than do today's Bible translations, which were not produced under direct revelation.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

The Eighth Article of Faith is also canonized (the Articles of Faith are part of the Pearl of Great Price) and it acknowledges errors in the Bible as it has been transmitted to us today. This includes the King James Version.

Joseph Smith said, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 9-10).

From this, I conclude that the errors in translation are predominately omissions as opposed to inaccuracy in wording. Many of these omissons have been restored by means of the Joseph Smith Translation.

The 8th Article of Faith suggests the Bible has errors. However, it does not say that the Joseph Smith Translation either (1) contains no errors, or (2) corrects any actual translation errors which the KJV perpetuates.

The JST is not canonized because it has never been published in its entirety by the Church. The reason for this has to do with details in Church history that I won't go into here.

If you are talking about the fact that the LDS Church didn't get the copyright for the JST, that copyright expired over a century ago. Yet the LDS Church has never canonized it, and for PR reasons probably never will.

However, in more recent times, prior to the publication of the current LDS edition of the King James Bible, scholars from BYU were allowed to go to the RLDS archives and thoroughly examine and verify the content of the JST manuscripts. Thereafter, excerpts from the JST were included in footnotes and an appendix in the current LDS edition of the Bible, and the Brethren gave their blessing for Church members to quote freely from the JST in talks, lessons and other LDS discourse. For me, that's good enough to regard the JST as being at least as authoritative as the King James Bible.

The JST has the same authoritativeness as the LDS edition footnotes and study aids. In other word's about the same authority as other LDS publications such as a Sunday School manual or Talmage's Jesus the Christ.

Debatable though this is, whether the JST conforms in every particular to "some pristine original text" is of no great moment. What is important to me is that it comes closer to conveying the mind of God than do today's Bible translations, which were not produced under direct revelation.

The "original mind of God" as of when? 67 A.D. or 1832 A.D.? For the JST, I argue for the latter (to the extent that the JST does represent God's mind, which is not a given, considering that it is not canonized). Plus, Mormons and Christians in general do not believe, like Muslims do, that their scriptures represent the actual mind of God. Rather, they represent the inspired mind of prophets writing in their own language and according to their own customs and historical context. They are the "word of God" only to the extent God gives his post facto stamp of approval, leading to their canonization.

So there's no reason to believe that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in the JST. But they could be the words that a potentially historically revisionist Jesus might have said had he been re-enacting his life on film in the 21st century.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

The 8th Article of Faith suggests the Bible has errors. However, it does not say that the Joseph Smith Translation either (1) contains no errors, or (2) corrects any actual translation errors which the KJV perpetuates.

As I said, the JST by revelation restores content that had been removed from the Bible, even before the Bible was compiled. For me, that is its primary value and the reason I hold it in higher regard than a mere study aid or lesson manual.

If you are talking about the fact that the LDS Church didn't get the copyright for the JST, that copyright expired over a century ago. Yet the LDS Church has never canonized it, and for PR reasons probably never will.

It is more complicated than that. It wasn't until the 1960s that relations between the LDS and RLDS Churches had normalized to the point that Robert Matthews and other BYU scholars could access the manuscripts and verify the accuracy of what had been published. By then the KJV had long been entrenched as the translation in official use by the Church. I agree it does not seem prudent at present to canonize the JST beyond the portions that are already in the Pearl of Great Price, but I'm not so short-sighted as to predict it will never happen.

The "original mind of God" as of when? 67 A.D. or 1832 A.D.?

I did not say original mind of God. Why did you include that word in the quotation marks? If you purport to quote me, please do so accurately.

For the JST, I argue for the latter (to the extent that the JST does represent God's mind, which is not a given, considering that it is not canonized).

By mind of God, I mean content to which He would want His children to have access.

Plus, Mormons and Christians in general do not believe, like Muslims do, that their scriptures represent the actual mind of God. Rather, they represent the inspired mind of prophets writing in their own language and according to their own customs and historical context.

Any translation -- or any use of language, for that matter -- is at best an imperfect approximation of the thoughts and meaning of a speaker or writer. Because the JST was brought forth under revelation, I believe it comes closer to the real deal than any other Bible version, especially to the extent that it restores content lost anciently.

They are the "word of God" only to the extent God gives his post facto stamp of approval, leading to their canonization.

I believe you are being inordinately legalistic in using the matter of canonization to marginalize the JST. Church leaders have said it is just fine to study and quote freely from the JST. I do so every chance I get. Thus far, I have never been reproached by anyone in authority for doing so; I don't expect I ever will be.

So there's no reason to believe that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in the JST. But they could be the words that a potentially historically revisionist Jesus might have said had he been re-enacting his life on film in the 21st century.

No, Jesus wouldn't have been speaking English during His mortality. As I said, a translation is but an imperfect approximation.

[Cobalt-70]

As I said, the JST by revelation restores content that had been removed from the Bible, even before the Bible was compiled. For me, that is its primary value and the reason I hold it in higher regard than a mere study aid or lesson manual.

I understand that's your opinion. But my point is that your opinion is not backed up by anything within the Mormon canon. Moreover, the fact that there are two versions of Matthew 26 means that your claim is severely weakened that the JST is a restoration of "original" content, rather than an inspired amplification comprising material that was never there in the first place. Thus, we cannot accept the JST on the same level of canonicity as the bible. And that's the way it should be if we want traditional Christians to join the LDS church and remain members.

[David T]

I understand that's your opinion. But my point is that your opinion is not backed up by anything within the Mormon canon. Moreover, the fact that there are two versions of Matthew 26 means that your claim is severely weakened that the JST is a restoration of "original" content, rather than an inspired amplification comprising material that was never there in the first place. Thus, we cannot accept the JST on the same level of canonicity as the bible. And that's the way it should be if we want traditional Christians to join the LDS church and remain members.

While I agree that the JST has nothing to do with restoration of 'original ancient content', I don't think that has anything to do with its viability for canonicity. What I do, however, think has questions concerning its canonicity is the very nature of the propject, which was being continually updated, and which I understand Joseph had continued to express desires to tweak to the end of his life. The problem of modern canonization is a view that Joseph wouldn't agree with - the view that canonization means set in stone. While Joseph happily massively edited and revised sections of the Doctrines and Covenants to reflect later understanding and organizational practice, can you imagine Church leaders giving the go-ahead to re-write or remove entire sections of the old D&C today?

If the JST selections were to be canonized, I think the most useful place to put the selections would be in chronological sequence intermixed with the D&C sections that were written during that same period. When studied this way, the continuity is clear, and also it leaves room for further clarifying and correcting revelation (in many cases, this certainly occurred - see D&C 76, an example of a revelation that has parts that have been surpassed and corrected in later revelations).

I don't view the JST as a restoration of ancient scripture - I see it as a modern revelatory text inspired by modern pressing questions prompted by the KJV. I think the idea of replacing the ancient Bible with the JST in the Standard Works would be a terrible mistake - but I do think the insertion of selected doctrinal passages around the D&C, or perhaps dated, and part of the Pearl of Great Price, could be beneficial. But unless this is done, I think the current practice of having them as footnotes and an appendix is certainly just fine.

The JST represents a very specific period of thinking and doctrinal understanding on the part of Joseph that in cases are and were contradicted and surpassed by him. Anything that that make the text understood as 'set in stone' I think is a misunderstanding of what it was, and would be unfortunate, and a step backwards in understanding more clearly the revelatory process, and the nature of scripture/written expressions of revelation.

That being said, I would like to request further discussions of the history and nature of the JST be taken to a different thread. It's a great topic, but it may end up muddying the discussion about the videos in question here.

Edited May 5, 2012 by David T

[David T]

Not sure if this link will last long, but someone mistakenly put a link to an in-progress edit of Jesus and Nicodemus - video edits are good, but sound hasn't been refined yet (you can hear the wind machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ16nW1sO0Y&feature=youtu.be

[David T]

The full, properly produced version is now online: Jesus Teaches of Being Born Again

[Tarski]

"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men."

An ironically self-referential sentence. ("it" may as well refer to that very mistaken sentence itself.)

Kinda cute. Maybe it was an oblique foreshadowing of Godel.

[Robert F. Smith]

Did anyone in your class theorize on why the church did not stay with the original 1830

version of the Book of Mormon as it was originally translated by Mr. Smith?

Here are some examples:

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning

from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret

such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." This was changed to 'Mosiah' in

subsequent editions.

Same for Ether 4:1 - "... and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not

come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." This too was changed to

'Mosiah' in subsequent editions.

Then you have 2 Nephi 30:6 - "... their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and

many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome

people."

"White" was changed to "pure" but they left the other verse which spoke about the curse of

black skin as opposed to the white and delightsome people (2 Nephi 5:21).

At Mosiah 21:28, the Original Manuscript is missing, but the Printers MS and 1830 have Benjamin (followed by Royal Skousen's 2009 Yale edition), while the 1837 through 1981 (and the RLDS 1908 1966) editions all have Mosiah. Some have opined the confusion is due to lack of a clearcut chronology here (see Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed., 7). It is also possible that the O MS was consulted by Joseph for the 1837 ed.

The textual history is just a bit different at Ether 4:1, although the O MS is also missing there. P MS and 1830 through 1841 1858 (and the RLDS 1874 and Skousen's Yale ed) all have Benjamin, while the 1849 1852 and 1879 through 1981 (and the RLDS 1966 ed) all have Mosiah; The RLDS 1908 hedged its bets with "Benjamin [Mosiah?]" -- see Stan Larson's BYU master's thesis, 271-272.

II Nephi 30:6 also has the O MS missing. However, P MS 1830 1837 1841 1852 1879 1920 (and Skousen's Yale ed) all have white, while the 1840 1852^c 1981 (and the RLDS 1874) all have pure. Not only is the textual history of this verse confusing, but we don't know whether Joseph corrected the 1840 to match the O MS. Moreover, the notion that "scales of darkness" begin to fall from their eyes as they become more holy people, reminds one of the similar phrase in Acts 9:18 "there fell from their eyes as it had been scales." Difficult to assume that this refers to skin pigmentation -- especially since the Jews also become a delightsome people in the very next verse (30:7). This is a metaphorical rather than racial reference, as in Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be purified , and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly."

The reference in II Nephi 5:21 may also be metaphorical (and possibly based on lifestyle and dress) as well, and not only for the same reasons as immediately above, but also because blackness of skin is used metaphorically in biblical language (Job 30:30, Jer 8:21, Lam 4:8, 5:10, Joel 2:6, Nahum 2:10). Beyond that, and with all due respect to Arnold Friberg's Nordic version of Book of Mormon peoples, Middle Eastern Israelites had olive complexions and would have fit in very well with New World peoples. They were not fair-skinned Caucasian Europeans.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

Then in verses 9-10, "The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth

set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now". The

video ignores this and depicts the governor directly speaking to Mary, not the bridegroom. It also seems to give Mary an elevated

status, as she basically sits next to the governor as if she was someone of high class.

It is clear that she is no ordinary guest, and it has been suggested that she was the mother of the bridegroom. Among others (e.g. that He had chidren), this is evidence that Jesus was married.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cdowis

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Wow, I really like this one too. These videos keep getting better. Doesn't hurt that that's one of my favorite exchanges in scripture.

[David T]

Here's the Calling of the 12: http://brightcove.ld...s-8000k-eng.mp4

Note Jesus at the beginning, "By the authority of the Holy Priesthood..." - I find it an interesting departure from past tradition in these videos (at least, that I'm familiar with) to actually place non-scriptural words in individuals' mouths in the New Testament when it comes to ordinances, such as John's Baptism in the earlier video, and now this. I find it fascinating, and very interesting. And a little surprising.

For the record, my 2-year-old daughter loves these videos. They've actually been a great scripture-time tool for her, when it comes to the life of Jesus. She loves the presentation of Jesus at the Temple, Jesus getting baptized, and Jesus blessing the bread and wine for the last supper. she pays attention, asks about things, and remembers them in different contexts.

For the Book of Mormon, we use My First Book of Mormon Stories, but these videos have been fantastic and interesting for the life of Jesus. (Much more so than the New Testament Stories put out by the Church)

Edited June 1, 2012 by David T

[David T]

Edited June 2, 2012 by David T

[volgadon]

[media=]

The Andersen painting is what it looks like.

[David T]

New Video:

Jesus Heals a Woman of Faith

.. I and I just realized that the Jesus Getting Baptized video has John the Baptist using Alma the Elder's Mosiah 18 baptismal formula. I knew it sounded familiar, but didn't recall that it was a scriptural text. Cool. And also an interesting choice.

Edited June 15, 2012 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

New Video:

Jesus Heals a Woman of Faith

.. I and I just realized that the Jesus Getting Baptized video has John the Baptist using Alma the Elder's Mosiah 18 baptismal formula. I knew it sounded familiar, but didn't recall that it was a scriptural text. Cool. And also an interesting choice.

Which prompts the question: If it's OK to use Book of Mormon-specific text in the script for this one, what's wrong with using text from the JST in other videos?

[David T]

Which prompts the question: If it's OK to use Book of Mormon-specific text in the script for this one, what's wrong with using text from the JST in other videos?

In my post above where I first discussed the use of what I thought were new made-up words, I voiced it was unique, and somewhat curious. I was more taken by surprise than anything at the chance in Church prescedent. (I think Finding Faith/Testament features John saying, "Yeshua, ..." and that's all we hear.

I think the usage is 'Cool' for Church use, and "an interesting choice" for when it comes to the ecumenical side of things. I find its use exactly the same as I do with that of the JST - that of being a bit disengenious when it is advertised as having its text be from the King James Version/Bible. If they don't know the source, they'd think we made something up. If they find out it's from the Book of Mormon, there could be a feeling of bait and switch.

Edited June 16, 2012 by David T

[David T]

Jesus Heals a Woman of Faith, now embedded:

[media=]

I like it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by David T

[David T]

Sermon on the Mount:

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I dunno, didn't impress me all too much. The editing you mentioned is very silly.

If I pipe up, I am more than sure with a thoughtful analysis, I would be annoying, so let me just say in simplicity, I'm with ya on it. Totally silly.