Matt. 12:38-39

[inquiringmind]

This is from the RLDS Version of The Joseph Smith Translation (which is available online.)

Matt 12:38-39

38 And he said unto them, When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none; but when a man speaketh against the Holy Ghost, then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth him empty, swept and garnished; for the good spirit leaveth him unto himself.

39 Then goeth the evil spirit, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in and dwell there; and the last end of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

http://www.centerpla...s/iv/iv-mat.htm

I'd like to know whether this matches the LDS version of the JST?

I know the LDS don't publish a complete JST, but I understand your edition of the King James (included in the Four in One) has extensive footnotes cross referencing it to the inspired version, and I'd like to know if there's anything like this in the footnotes of Matt. 12?

Thank you.

Edited April 30, 2013 by inquiringmind

[canard78]

This is from the RLDS Version of The Joseph Smith Translation (which is available online.)

Matt 12:38-39

http://www.centerpla...s/iv/iv-mat.htm

I'd like to know whether this matches the LDS version of the JST?

I know the LDS don't publish a complete JST, but I understand your edition of the King James (included in the Four in One) has extensive footnotes cross referencing it to the inspired version, and I'd like to know if there's anything like this in the footnotes of Matt. 12?

Thank you.

Yes, it's this:

"37 Then came some of the scribes and said unto him, Master, it is written that, Every sin shall be forgiven; but ye say, Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. And they asked him, saying, How can these things be?

38 And he said unto them, When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none; but when a man speaketh against the Holy Ghost, then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth him empty, swept and garnished; for the good spirit leaveth him unto himself." (Joseph Smith Translation, JST, Matthew, JST, Matthew 12)

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-matt/12?lang=eng

Why do you ask?

[inquiringmind]

I ask because I've been reading the JST at that RLDS site for a long time, and I'm always finding something that's a little different from the translations I'm use to reading, and my first question is always whether this site's version of the JST is at all reliable (from an LDS pov.)

I thank you for your reply.

Have you ever been to the site?

Do you find it reliable?

Edited April 30, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Palerider]

Perhaps neither of the versions you refer to have any validity. I've never understood Joseph's need for clarification of these verses. They seem to stand well enough of their own accord in the original canon.

[inquiringmind]

Joseph said something (in the articles of faith, I think) about believing in the Bible as it was originally inspired.

Wasn't he led to translate a corrected text of scripture that removed human error?

Isn't that what the Inspired Version is?

Edited April 30, 2013 by inquiringmind

[canard78]

I think most general members would believe that, but it's a bit of a tricky topic.

I would view it as more of an inspired commentary by Joseph. Not a restoration of the original text.

The particularly sticky points come when the KJV of the Bible have an identical passage (e.g. Isaiah quotes) but the Inspired version corrects the KJV or the bible. As such he's also effectively correcting the Book of Mormon. Which would be a bit odd.

So no, I don't consider the JST to be a more correct version of the translation, but can help to clarify some of the messages within the scriptures.

[inquiringmind]

I think most general members would believe that, but it's a bit of a tricky topic.

I would view it as more of an inspired commentary by Joseph. Not a restoration of the original text.

The particularly sticky points come when the KJV of the Bible have an identical passage (e.g. Isaiah quotes) but the Inspired version corrects the KJV or the bible. As such he's also effectively correcting the Book of Mormon. Which would be a bit odd.

So no, I don't consider the JST to be a more correct version of the translation, but can help to clarify some of the messages within the scriptures.

I've been told the BOM isn't inerrant, and it would seem that when Mormon prophets quoted Isaiah they were quoting the text they had on the brass plates, so why shouldn't any human errors contained in that text (and subsequent texts shared by the Jews) be corrected in a God-given, inspired translation of Scripture?

Lehi and his family would have been contemporaries of Jeremiah, wouldn't they?

And the text of Isaiah they brought to the new world on the brass plates would have been one of the texts available in Jeremiah's day, wouldn't it?

And isn't there a passage in Jeremiah that speaks the the text of scripture being corrupted by the pen of the scribes?

Edited April 30, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

so why shouldn't any human errors contained in that text (and subsequent texts shared by the Jews) be corrected in a God-given, inspired translation of Scripture?

There is no evidence that God works that way (forcing prophets to create perfect transmission of His revelations).

[inquiringmind]

There is no evidence that God works that way (forcing prophets to create perfect transmission of His revelations).

Why would Joseph need to be forced?

[Calm]

Why would Joseph need to be forced?

Because he was human and humans are not perfect. Can imperfect beings create something that is perfect without interference from a perfect being? Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Yep]

Why would Joseph need to be forced?

I think this is afield of the point.

God places His word in an imperfect medium, why anticipate perfection? Imperfection appears to be implicit in nearly all of creation. Christ was the only perfection.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Yep

[inquiringmind]

Because he was human and humans are not perfect. Can imperfect beings create something that is perfect without interference from a perfect being?

Is communication interference?

If God says, "write these words," is that interference?

Also, by your logic, wouldn't what you're saying apply as much to Isaiah as to Joseph (and even more so to any scribe who recorded the text of Isaiah that Lehi's family had on the brass plates, and that the BOM prophets quoted)?

Why shouldn't there be errors in that text (and in the text of The King James Bible) that God could correct by simply telling (not forcing) a faithful prophet to correctly write down what He wanted?

Edited April 30, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Yep]

Is communication interference?

If God says, "write these words," is that interference?

Also, by your logic, wouldn't what you're saying apply as much to Isaiah as to Joseph (and even more so to any scribe who recorded the text of Isaiah that Lehi's family had on the brass plates, and that the BOM prophets quoted)?

Why shouldn't there be errors in that text (and in the text of The King James Bible) that God could correct by simply telling (not forcing) a faithful prophet to correctly write down what Isaiah actually wrote?

Is there a perfect language on the Earth? Simply communicating with us through language introduces imperfection. How is an imperfect prophet going to be able to perfectly transmit the message? My understanding of God speaking to Man is that it is not frequently in plain English or Hebrew or Greek or any other language. It is, most often, through feeling, impression, vision, etc. which is then interpreted by the Prophet into language to be transmitted to us. The question isn't proper, God speaks to man in the best method for the Prophet to be best capable of understanding, words are not the best method. Why doesn't God cause the Prophet to be a director and have him make a perfect video depicting his words with images? Wouldn't that be a better method of communicating vision? God uses the method He will, God uses imperfect things. I love the song Broken. Error allows God more interaction with Man. We go to Him for help, we go to Him for guidance, we go to Him for advice, we go to Him. Perhaps error is intentional to insure that we do so.

Also, why correct the past when we have living prophets to guide us today? If we were to use a LDS originated translation it would provide a stumbling block to missionary work, and would provide little benefit to us that we could not gain through living prophets and the other standard works. We, Man in general, aren't given things perfectly. We are expected to have faith and use the spirit to discern truth through the guidance of the living Prophet.

[Calm]

What Yep says....

[EllenMaksoud]

This is from the RLDS Version of The Joseph Smith Translation (which is available online.)

Matt 12:38-39

http://www.centerpla...s/iv/iv-mat.htm

I'd like to know whether this matches the LDS version of the JST?

I know the LDS don't publish a complete JST, but I understand your edition of the King James (included in the Four in One) has extensive footnotes cross referencing it to the inspired version, and I'd like to know if there's anything like this in the footnotes of Matt. 12?

Thank you.

I had contact with the RLDS in 1974 and gave up in frustration. From my memories, and my experience with the LDS church now, I would say that the RLDS are noting like the LDS. In fact when I was in Kirtland, Ohio in 2011, and toured the Temple, the RLDS do not call themselves any kind of Mormons, but now call themselves, "The Community of Christ". It is my understanding that they no longer use the Book of Mormon in services. There is a branch of that church close to me, I should go there one Sunday just to see what they do now.

My last experience with them was when one of the elders told me to stop reading the Bible, because it confused me.

[Palerider]

There is no evidence that God works that way (forcing prophets to create perfect transmission of His revelations).

I think you may be overstating and complicating this issue. No one is asking for a perfect or flawless transmission of God's thoughts to our minds in a nearly telepathic way. Just a fairly accurate translation of the words of the prophets from one language to another will do.

I think a very applicable example of the Lord's desire to have things correct and his ability to make them correct, is recorded in 2 Samuel 7: 1-13, where the prophet Nathan, knowing that King David desired to build a temple for the Lord, tells him to go ahead and follow his heart.

Later that night in a revelation the Lord reveals to Nathan that he has to return to David and tell him he is not permitted to build the temple but rather one of his descendants (Solomon) will be allowed to do so. And thus we see that the Lord does not permit His servants to wander far and for long periods of time in darkness, but rather corrects them and His people in a very timely manner.

Contrast this incident with the length of time it took the LDS faith to correct the priesthood issue regarding those of african descent and their reasons for the restriction in the first place.

Makes one wonder.........

[canard78]

Because he was human and humans are not perfect. Can imperfect beings create something that is perfect without interference from a perfect being?

So Joseph got it wrong in his weakness first time round (BoM) but got it closer to perfect second time round (JST)?

I guess that's possible. But I've very little confidence in the JST being "closer to perfect" of what a OT/NT prophet or disciple actually wrote originally. As mentioned, more likely an inspired commentary. As such probably a useful doesn't for clarifying how certain passages fit Mormon doctrine than the 'most accurate' version of the Bible.

[Calm]

So Joseph got it wrong in his weakness first time round (BoM) but got it closer to perfect second time round (JST)?

Not making that claim, just responding to the claim of inerrancy.

[Stone holm]

Is there a perfect language on the Earth? Simply communicating with us through language introduces imperfection. How is an imperfect prophet going to be able to perfectly transmit the message? My understanding of God speaking to Man is that it is not frequently in plain English or Hebrew or Greek or any other language. It is, most often, through feeling, impression, vision, etc. which is then interpreted by the Prophet into language to be transmitted to us. The question isn't proper, God speaks to man in the best method for the Prophet to be best capable of understanding, words are not the best method. Why doesn't God cause the Prophet to be a director and have him make a perfect video depicting his words with images? Wouldn't that be a better method of communicating vision? God uses the method He will, God uses imperfect things. I love the song Broken. Error allows God more interaction with Man. We go to Him for help, we go to Him for guidance, we go to Him for advice, we go to Him. Perhaps error is intentional to insure that we do so.

Also, why correct the past when we have living prophets to guide us today? If we were to use a LDS originated translation it would provide a stumbling block to missionary work, and would provide little benefit to us that we could not gain through living prophets and the other standard works. We, Man in general, aren't given things perfectly. We are expected to have faith and use the spirit to discern truth through the guidance of the living Prophet.

If that were true, would it not be true of all Divine revelation and therefore make living oracles open to imperfect transmission of Divine messages as well. In other words the Tower of Babel would not only have confounded the ability of people to communicate with each other, but the ability of God to communicate with man? The argument proves too much I think.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I had contact with the RLDS in 1974 and gave up in frustration. From my memories, and my experience with the LDS church now, I would say that the RLDS are noting like the LDS. In fact when I was in Kirtland, Ohio in 2011, and toured the Temple, the RLDS do not call themselves any kind of Mormons, but now call themselves, "The Community of Christ". It is my understanding that they no longer use the Book of Mormon in services. There is a branch of that church close to me, I should go there one Sunday just to see what they do now.

My last experience with them was when one of the elders told me to stop reading the Bible, because it confused me.

Please, do not confuse the Community of Christ with believers in original RLDS teachings (of which I am one).

[EllenMaksoud]

Please, do not confuse the Community of Christ with believers in original RLDS teachings (of which I am one).

I am sorry. I know of anyone that knows the difference. I am sure that the Community of Christ has control of the original Kirtland, Temple. Google thinks that you were RLDS until 2001 and then became The Community of Christ. As I search through the internet, facebook thinks that you are LDS. I'm going to drive over there, it is not far, right now to see what it says on the outside.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am sorry. I know of anyone that knows the difference. I am sure that the Community of Christ has control of the original Kirtland, Temple. Google thinks that you were RLDS until 2001 and then became The Community of Christ. As I search through the internet, facebook thinks that you are LDS. I'm going to drive over there, it is not far, right now to see what it says on the outside.

The Community of Christ does own the Kirtland Temple (for now). What I am pointing out is though the CofC has abandoned many Restoration teachings there is a large group that has come out of the church and have maintained the original RLDS tenets in Restoration Branches.

[Yep]

If that were true, would it not be true of all Divine revelation and therefore make living oracles open to imperfect transmission of Divine messages as well. In other words the Tower of Babel would not only have confounded the ability of people to communicate with each other, but the ability of God to communicate with man? The argument proves too much I think.

No, you are extending the argument too far. I have simply stated that the prophets are the ones who translate into words the message they receive. Why would/how could anything interfere with God's ability?

[EllenMaksoud]

Please, do not confuse the Community of Christ with believers in original RLDS teachings (of which I am one).

Please, I assure you that no affront was intended. My words were purely out of ignorance. So, I did drive over to the one near my house and it is a Community of Christ church now. When I attended there in '74 it was RLDS. So, I would be very interested in anything that you wish to share. I just finished a study on Emma Smith and found her to be a most fascinating woman. I'm not personally threatened by Joseph Smith III refusal to go to SLC. I think that they'd all been through a terribly hard time, and if I had lost 4 babies in my early years, I would not have fared as well as she.

[Stone holm]

Please, do not confuse the Community of Christ with believers in original RLDS teachings (of which I am one).

Didn't know there was a difference other than C of C tended to be less anti-Mormon, what is the difference?