Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Joseph Smith Translation

ERayR

By ERayR
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Robert F. Smith Grand Master

Robert F. Smith

Posted
Posted

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv

At least I believe this is the official online version. 

The official RLDS/Community of Chist version.  Note that they refer to it as the "Inspired Version," and "Inspired Revision," not the "Joseph Smith Translation."  It is not part of the LDS Canon of Scripture, and both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon cooperated in making a wide range of revisions to the biblical text, but some revelations were included -- which constitute the Book of Moses, and Matthew 23-24.

Uncle Dale Grand Master

Uncle Dale

Posted
Posted

...Note that they refer to it as the "Inspired Version," and "Inspired Revision," not the "Joseph Smith Translation."...

 

 

When the first edition had been printed and made ready

for binding, somebody got the wild idea of imprinting

"Inspired Version" on its calfskin spine.

 

I do not recall that such an addition was ever approved

by votes of the quorums at General Conference, nor by

the sons of Joseph Smith, Jr. -- It just sort of happened.

 

However, the term "translation" was most certainly agreed

upon by the leaders of the Church. They emphatically pointed

out that the RLDS Bible was a correct "translation," made by

Joseph Smith, from the original texts (before they were altered

in their Hebrew and Greek, by the Great and Abominable Church).

 

It was only during my lifetime that the notion of a "revision"

ever entered Josephite vocabulary -- to be followed still later

by the equally innovative "commentary."

 

Is it truly a restoration of the original texts (as the First Presidency's

Introduction for the original edition claimed)? Did it really "restore"

many of the "plain and precious" passages maliciously removed by

Satan's minions in ages gone by?

 

I rather doubt it. But there are today Restoration Branches in which

I would be promptly escorted to the exit door, should I ever voice

such a "revisionist" opinion within their sanctuaries.

 

UD

 

ps -- Ever wonder what an 1843 Nauvoo edition would have looked

like, had the Law brothers responded with the necessary publication

funds? The text was incomplete in some places -- so that matter

would have required attention. But, what if our ancestors had been

given a "JST" from the Laws' press, instead of the Nauvoo Expositor?

Michael Sanders Collaborator

Michael Sanders

Posted
Posted

When the first edition had been printed and made ready

for binding, somebody got the wild idea of imprinting

"Inspired Version" on its calfskin spine.

 

Hi UD,

 

I’ve never heard this before do you have a source?  My understanding is that the first time that the subtitle “Inspired Version” appeared was in the reprint of 1936.  The original 1867 printing bore the title “Holy Scriptures” and continued thereafter.  But yes, the designations “New Translation”, “Joseph Smith Translation” never picked up any traction in RLDS circles – preferring the shortened “Inspired Version” designation.

 

 

I do not recall that such an addition was ever approved

by votes of the quorums at General Conference, nor by

the sons of Joseph Smith, Jr. -- It just sort of happened.

I don’t know if any “conference action” approved the subtitle in 1936 (could look it up) – but the April Conference of 1866 authorized a committee to get the manuscripts from Emma and proceed with the publication of manuscript revisions (several manuscripts to go over which resulted in a new RLDS manuscript that Joseph Smith III went over and approved – btw, his selections from the preferred manuscripts have been viewed favorably by LDS scholars.

 

 

However, the term "translation" was most certainly agreed

upon by the leaders of the Church. They emphatically pointed

out that the RLDS Bible was a correct "translation," made by

Joseph Smith, from the original texts (before they were altered

in their Hebrew and Greek, by the Great and Abominable Church).

 

It was only during my lifetime that the notion of a "revision"

ever entered Josephite vocabulary -- to be followed still later

by the equally innovative "commentary."

The idea that this work represented a “manuscript restoration” to the originals may have been taught and promulgated over the years (erroneously I might add) but I’m not sure that the original committee viewed it as such.  Notice the published title for the 1867 printing:

 

The Holy Scriptures:  Translated and Corrected by the Spirit of Revelation.  By Joseph Smith Jr., the Seer (Plano, IL: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1867)

 

This type of language is of course taken from the manuscripts themselves which is reflective of how Joseph and his scribes understood the work they were engaged in – of course Robert Matthews and others have long since noted carefully nuanced readings of words like “translation” and what it referred to in those contexts.  But translation from ancient to modern employing textual sources is obviously not in view here and emendations were more along the lines of a prophetic midrash or commentary.  There are many things going on in the new translation, i.e. corrections, expansions, inspiration – revealments “as from my own bosom”, restorations of lost material, and yes things that could be argued as corrected text which compares more favorably with more modern translations of the bible.  But as you know, we have no original autographs of the biblical manuscripts from which to make the types of comparisons you are asking for.

 

 

Is it truly a restoration of the original texts (as the First Presidency's

Introduction for the original edition claimed)? Did it really "restore"

many of the "plain and precious" passages maliciously removed by

Satan's minions in ages gone by?

 

 

I fail to see where the “preface” says that it was a “manuscript restoration” to original sources.  But again, I realize that was how it has been interpreted over the years by the church.  And if any of the corrected material represents a restoration of lost narratives or doctrine or information that was lost by whatever means then it is not technically incorrect in that assessment because the proof texts in the preface (if given a full range of interpretive meaning) can be interpreted in that way.  Besides, we shouldn’t let editorial commentary added to the text necessarily drive our conclusions – many incorrect traditions have come from this sort of thing.

 

 

I rather doubt it. But there are today Restoration Branches in which

I would be promptly escorted to the exit door, should I ever voice

such a "revisionist" opinion within their sanctuaries.

To each his own.  But that only makes you as guilty as the people you are complaining about who would show you the door if you promoted your views in their assemblies.  I mean, isn’t your dogmatism (impregnated with unbelief) just as dangerous as the dogmatism (impregnated with incorrect belief) that results in the bad hermeneutics and misunderstanding that you decry?  But I would suggest that there is a better interpretive framework that is much more plausible and allows for a more faithful response and doesn’t cause people to abandon the faith with the gun of naturalism pointed at their head.  There is another path which doesn’t ascribe evil motives, fraud, delusion, or spiritual fanaticism to every historical event or occurrence and yet at the same time makes room for errors, “mistakes of men”, and the development of non-scriptural ideas about the faith (traditions) even when evidence points another direction.  However, most of us are more interested in exercising our “unrighteous judgment” on our forebears instead of giving them the latitude that we ourselves would want in return.

 

As one who attends a restoration branch here in Independence, MO – it is unfortunate that with all the resources available today (in large part due to the scholarly efforts of our LDS cousins) that such views do still persist among many.  For them, any discussion about manuscript evidence or church history narratives that they believe runs counter to their “authorized” sources is met with fear, denial, and unfortunately sometimes persecution of others beliefs as you note.  Of course, this is all within the backdrop of a perception that “new information” caused the downfall of their church, and those who advocate such things are heretics, apostates, and dissenters.  After all, many who “go down that path end up leaving the church” they say.  Ironically, it was just a bad naturalist interpretation of many of these things coupled with transgression among the people that led to their fall.

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Michael Sanders Collaborator

Michael Sanders

Posted
Posted

Thank you.  I ordered it.

Good. I think you'll enjoy it. It's worth the $20 just to have a copy of Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews massive volume. I first came upon the work of Robert Matthews about 20 years ago and his 1960's-70's research is still the gold standard in JST studies.

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Uncle Dale Grand Master

Uncle Dale

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi UD,

 

I’ve never heard this before do you have a source?  My understanding is that the first time that the subtitle “Inspired Version” appeared was in the reprint of 1936.  The original 1867 printing bore the title “Holy Scriptures” and continued thereafter....

 

The idea that this work represented a “manuscript restoration” to the originals may have been taught and promulgated over the years (erroneously I might add) but I’m not sure that the original committee viewed it as such.  Notice the published title for the 1867 printing:

 

The Holy Scriptures:  Translated and Corrected by the Spirit of Revelation.  By Joseph Smith Jr., the Seer (Plano, IL: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1867)...

 

I fail to see where the “preface” says that it was a “manuscript restoration” to original sources.  But again, I realize that was how it has been interpreted over the years by the church....

 

To each his own.  But that only makes you as guilty as the people you are complaining about who would show you the door if you promoted your views in their assemblies.  I mean, isn’t your dogmatism (impregnated with unbelief) just as dangerous as the dogmatism (impregnated with incorrect belief) that results in the bad hermeneutics and misunderstanding that you decry?  ..

 

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

 

 

Hello, Mike --

 

I'm no expert on the JST, by any means -- so, when I repeat

what I was taught, there could always be errors included. I

was taught that the 1867 Plano edition simply bore the

impression "The Holy Scriptures" on the spine:

 

RLDS-IV.jpg

 

But that some copies bound in Lamoni, after removal of the Herald office there, had a black

lable tag, with gold lettering, added to the spine beneath (or, perhaps in place of) the regular

title -- and that odd occurrence was the first instance of the term "Inspired Version" being added

to the book's outside. If you have access to a Lamoni variant, perhaps you can check it to

confirm what I was told. What all happened between 1867 and 1936, I was never told.

 

A true Plano edition should have five divisions on the spine binding, while a Lamoni

variant (see above) should have six.

 

While the original "Preface" nowhere states that Joseph Smith had Hebrew and Greek

texts in front of him as he and Sidney Rigdon "translated" and wrote down his version of

the Bible, the "Preface" alludes to the fact that omissions in the KJV needed to be

restored, and that the 1867 Scriptures were published for that reason. That is all I meant

to say about the "Preface." Over the years I was repeatedly taught that the "Inspired

Version" did indeed restore missing passages, among which was the fact that Adam

was baptized by immersion and that Joseph Smith's 1820s mission was prophesied

in the original revelation of the Torah, etc.

 

>It is declared in the Book of Mormon that "many plain and precious parts"

>have been taken away from the Bible:

>

>"For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb, many parts

>which are plain and most precious and also many covenants of the Lord

>have been taken away; and all this have they done, that they might pervert

>the right ways of the Lord; that they might blind the eyes and harden the

>hearts of the children of men: wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath

>gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there

>are many plain and precious things takenaway from the book, which is the

>book of the Lamb of God; and after these plain and precious things were

>taken away, it gooth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles...."

>

>This declaration is fully sustained...

 

As for my being unwelcome in certain Restoration Branches, I'll share with you an

experience from my latest (and last) visit to Missouri. I was well received by the

Blue Springs "Zarahemla" congregation -- even though they judged me to be a

supporter of McMurray, etc. (though I was not). However, the presiding elder

warned me about my planned visit to the South Crysler branch. I was advised not

to say anything in disagreement with the views prevalent there (so I did not).

 

But a more relevant example arose back when I was yet an observant member

of the RLDS Church (not yet re-named, as "Transformation 2000" was still years

into the future). I was then a seminarian at Methodist Theological School at

Delaware, north of Columbus. I had been given papers to transfer membership

from Wyoming to the Worthington, Ohio RLDS branch -- but that application was

held up and never acted upon.

 

After attending one session of the Sunday School adult study group, I was

summoned into the Pastor's study and asked point blank, whether or not I

personally sustained the Epitome of Faith, including the passage regarding

"the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes." I

replied that I did not, and neither did JSIII in his later years, etc.

 

Whereupon I was almost escorted to the exit door -- at least I was instructed

not to share my views inside the chapel. The internship I had applied for was

turned down at that branch, and the Pastor let me know that any contributions

I might wish to make must be done outside the church and away from members.

I could mow the lawn, rake the leaves, re-paint the congregation's signboard,

etc. -- but could not mention any of "the sectarian falsehoods they teach you

at that Wesleyan school..."

 

I protested that Seventy Stan Hunt had attended the Protestant seminary, and

had approved my enrollment, and was the local World Church representative

in the Columbus district -- all to no avail. I was told "If you wish to fellowship

with Brother Hunt, move over to the Westerville branch -- his views are not

welcome here."

 

Westerville being too far away for me to travel to each Sunday, I began

attending the LDS Delaware Branch (now 1st Delaware Ward) and was very

kindly received and fellowshiped by the second counsellor in the branch

presidency (whose Mormon family more or less became my own "family away

from home" in Ohio, while I was attending the grad school there).

 

So -- having witnessed RLDS internecine rivalries and exclusiveness, firsthand

myself, I took the advice given at Blue Springs to heart, when I presented myself

at that Independence congregation. Luckily the Restoration folks there tolerated

my heterodoxy and were never tempted to show me the door out...

 

UD

Edited by Uncle Dale
Michael Sanders Collaborator

Michael Sanders

Posted
Posted

UD,

I probably personally know the individuals of which you speak. I'm often viewed as heretical in some of those circles because of some of my unorthodox views on various matters - but I can understand why they want to uphold more traditional perspectives. They are trying to preserve the faith of their flocks from what they perceive as attacks on the faith. BTW, I've spent quote a bit of time on your website looking at the material you've unearthed, thanks for that work even if we have completely different perspectives. I was stationed in Hawaii over at Schofield Barracks fro 1989-1991 and spent some time training on the Big Island - probably flew over your house!

If you ever come back to Independence look me up.

Take Care.

Michael Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Bob Crockett Grand Master

Bob Crockett

Posted
Posted

The official RLDS/Community of Chist version.  Note that they refer to it as the "Inspired Version," and "Inspired Revision," not the "Joseph Smith Translation."  It is not part of the LDS Canon of Scripture, and both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon cooperated in making a wide range of revisions to the biblical text, but some revelations were included -- which constitute the Book of Moses, and Matthew 23-24.

What exactly do you mean by that?  The footnote and the endnotes in the LDS canon contain JST references, and I consider them to be canonized.   You disagree?

Alan Veteran

Alan

Posted
Posted

I have a copy of the "Holy Scriptures". It is published by Herald House, but I bought it through the Latter-day Bookstore here in England.

I also have a comparison edition where the JST and the KJV are published side by side (also published by Herald House), so it is easy to compare the changes.

One interesting change is where the KJV says that Abraham gave Melchizedek one tenth of all he had, and the JST/IV says he gave Melchizedek one tenth of all he had, above that of which he had need.

There are lots of subtle changes like that.

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

What exactly do you mean by that?  The footnote and the endnotes in the LDS canon contain JST references, and I consider them to be canonized.   You disagree?

I do not believe they are considered canonical any more than any other footnote. They are added for clarification but I do not believe the inspired version was ever canonized by the church. 

Uncle Dale Grand Master

Uncle Dale

Posted
Posted

I do not believe they are considered canonical any more than any other footnote. They are added for clarification but I do not believe the inspired version was ever canonized by the church. 

 

Of course "canonized" is just a technical term, which may or may not

govern how the words of a religious text are accepted and acted upon.

 

Joseph Smith once said that he accepted Pratt's "Voice of Warning"

as being an authority equal to the Book of Mormon. John Taylor could

point to a D&C section as canonical authority for LDS monogamy (while

at that very same time maintaining several plural wives himself). There

was a day when the "Lectures on Faith" were canonical -- and another

day, immediately following, when they were not.

 

Take, for example, two identical passages, one from the PGP and its

duplicate, as published in the JST. Cite the first set of words in the

footnotes of an LDS scholarly composition, and they are canonical.

Cite the second set of words, and their source is deemed non-canonical.

 

Joseph Smith evidently felt that the JST was near enough to finalization

of its contents, to approach the Law brothers at Nauvoo, over the idea

of funding its eventual publication. --- Suppose that had been done, and

the money raised, and Smith's permission to proceed subsequently

granted. --- Suppose, also, that the pages for this "authorized" JST were

actually set in type, proofs ran off, examined, verified, and the printing

forms put into storage for anticipated use, later in 1844.

 

Had those imagined sets of type been used, in 1867, to print and publish

the JST, would such a result have been deemed "canonical" by Brigham

Young and his people in Utah? Of course not. Canonical and authoritative

may end up being two entirely different things, in some cases.

 

UD

Freedom Grand Master

Freedom

Posted
Posted

Nevertheless, they were never accepted as scripture and Joseph never presented them as such. From my perspective, they were an exercise in learning doctrine, and a process which produced much of the modern scripture we have today. 

Uncle Dale Grand Master

Uncle Dale

Posted
Posted

I probably personally know the individuals of which you speak. I'm often viewed as heretical in some of those circles because of some of my unorthodox views on various matters - but I can understand why they want to uphold more traditional perspectives. They are trying to preserve the faith of their flocks from what they perceive as attacks on the faith. BTW, I've spent quote a bit of time on your website looking at the material you've unearthed, thanks for that work even if we have completely different perspectives. ...

If you ever come back to Independence look me up.

 

 

Thank you for the invitation, Michael -- however, it seems that my

recent trip over to Honolulu (for medical treatment & testing), it is

advised, should be my last. I doubt I'll be getting on any airplanes

in the future.

 

As for RLDS leaders attempting to preserve the faith of their

congregations, they may find that questioning and rejecting the

World Church authority sets a powerful example to their own

parishioners -- when questions arise as to their local authority.

From many of my experiences in the past, I conclude that some

local leaders were more interested in maintaining and promoting

their personal religious authority, than they were interested in

preserving the latter day doctrinal purity of individual members.

 

On the other hand, it brings a happy feeling to know that you and

others can still make use of some materials featured on my various

web-sites, despite differences of opinion over history and tradition.

 

As has been noted in a couple of recent postings here, my views

expressed on-line back during the 1990s were generally supportive

of the Restoration Movement in general and of the RLDS in particular.

 

But, as early as the 1970s I was asking myself these anagonizing queries:

 

1. Did God reject the Brighamites (and their dead) for failing to

complete the interior construction of the Nauvoo temple?

 

2. Did God preserve a unbroken patriarchal priesthood lineage from

the biblical Joseph, down through Joseph Smith, Sr., and were

non-Smiths Roy A. Cheville and Reed M. Holmes "genuine" Patriarchs?

 

3. Did the Great Millennial Temple in Jackson County HAVE to be

constructed within the bounds of the cornerstones laid by Joseph Smith?

 

4. Were the Danites and the Council of Fifty really the post-Nauvoo

creations of Brigham Young?

 

5. Were Emma Hale Smith, Katherine Smith Salisbury, William Smith,

and other earliest RLDS members telling the truth, when they testified

that there was no polygamy in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith's lifetime?

 

Strangely enough, it was Richard and Pamela Price's "Joseph Smith

Fought Polygamy" that set me on my current path...

 

That... and participation in such on-line forum discussions as are

conducted here in this forum.

 

So, if you hear it said that Uncle Dale is "that guy who got corrupted

by listening to the Mormons too much," the sentiment expressed may

be more than a little true, and perhaps a caution to yourself, not to

begin agreeing with the LDS on too many historical controversies.

 

Oh well...

 

UD

Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

Uncle Dale, I'll never forget going to church services in Nauvoo at the RLDS church. It was so very down to earth and the minister gave a beautiful sermon, if only I'd taken notes. But boy was I dismayed at the small congregation. It was at the height of my faith crisis and really nitpicked and wanted to prove the mainstream church to be false. Imagine my bigger dismay at visiting the local LDS sacrament meeting where people were seated clear back on the stage. More than likely most were visitors. But in my mind I kept comparing the two services. Thinking oh what if the LDS church is true, look how many show up and look how many didn't show up at the RLDS church. Then when visiting the RLDS temple, my husband and I were about the only visitors, it really bothered me, especially when I wanted to find things wrong with the LDS church. But loved the tours given by the RLDS church, interesting to see Joseph Smith's hiding place up in a bedroom behind a fake wall in a closet, in their home right by the Mississippi.

Btw, did you say you were a former Mormon? If you don't mind me asking.

Uncle Dale Grand Master

Uncle Dale

Posted
Posted

...

Btw, did you say you were a former Mormon? If you don't mind me asking.

 

 

Nope -- never a Mormon.

 

I did have a great-grandmother who switched from RLDS

to LDS -- as well as a great-great-grandfather, who left the

Mormons for a decade and fellowshiped with the Josephites,

before returning to the LDS (on his death-bed).

 

So -- irony or ironies -- had it not been for my ancestral

offsprings of polygamists, I could have never been born

in later years.

 

Oh well...

 

Yes, Reorganized LDS (and Community of Christ) worship

services, reunion camp-meetings, and other activities can

be very uplifting -- obviously sincere and heartfelt -- and

just as obviously the dwindling faith of a people headed

for extinction.

 

I give them a couple of decades before the last of them

close up shop and merge with the United Methodists.

 

Now I know how the Southern troops, walking barefoot

back home after Appomattox must have felt. And their

singing "Dixie" just made their Lost Cause all that more

poignant.

 

"Save your Kirtland banknotes, the Restoration will

rise again," I hear my old friends in Jackson County

shouting -- but each year their voices grow fainter.

 

UD

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...