Julie Rowe

[HappyJackWagon]

I hope by now both you and Gray are acquainted with the Joseph Smith Translation of this passage.

I try to follow the church's counsel to use the King James Version and not any other translation

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I try to follow the church's counsel to use the King James Version and not any other translation

Funny. Hu hu hu hu

[Gray]

The Joseph Smith Translation renders verses 15 and 17 as follows:

 

That's an interesting insight into what Joseph Smith believed about end times, but less helpful for getting Paul's perspective

Edited August 24, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

That's an interesting insight into what Joseph Smith believed about end times, but less helpful for getting Paul's perspective

 

Unless you believe that Joseph was restoring what Paul originally wrote (intended to say).

[Gray]

Unless you believe that Joseph was restoring what Paul originally wrote (intended to say).

 

It's pretty clear that when you compare the JST to the earliest source documents for the Bible, Joseph wasn't restoring the original content, but providing a kind of commentary on the Bible

[Scott Lloyd]

I try to follow the church's counsel to use the King James Version and not any other translation

I hope the winking smiley is an indication that you understand the Church certainly does not counsel people not to use the Joseph Smith Translation. In fact, the passages I cited are among those included as footnotes in the LDS edition of the King James Bible.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It's pretty clear that when you compare the JST to the earliest source documents for the Bible, Joseph wasn't restoring the original content, but providing a kind of commentary on the Bible

It's not "pretty clear" to me, and I categorically reject the notion that the JST was intended to do anything less than correct the scriptures as they have been handed down to us.

 

Moreover, I understand that even "the earliest source documents for the Bible" are far removed from the original writings and thus do not disprove the JST.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do we have any kind of definitive claim that John the Apostle actually wrote this? (NOT a CFR- just curious)

I know there are 2 competing theories about it and I've always taken the approach that it was written by someone claiming to be (a) John, but not necessarily John the Apostle. Scholars don't agree but I'm curious if there is a statement by a church authority.

Is the prophet Nephi authoritative enough for you?

 

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold ^aone of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 21 Behold, he shall ^asee and ^bwrite the ^cremainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

 22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

 23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the ^abook which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most ^bprecious and easy to the understanding of all men.

 24 And behold, the things which this ^aapostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

 25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should ^awrite them.

 26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have ^awritten them; and they are ^bsealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

 27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was ^aJohn, according to the word of the angel.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

I hope the winking smiley is an indication that you understand the Church certainly does not counsel people not to use the Joseph Smith Translation. In fact, the passages I cited are among those included as footnotes in the LDS edition of the King James Bible.

Yes, Scott. I was having a little fun. I know the church doesn't discourage people from using the approved portions of the JST even though they don't use the entire "inspired translation" and emphatically state that members should use the KJV. Technically Joseph's inspired version would be included, otherwise we would use that as our primary bible.

[HappyJackWagon]

Is the prophet Nephi authoritative enough for you?

Yes- thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, Scott. I was having a little fun. I know the church doesn't discourage people from using the approved portions of the JST even though they don't use the entire "inspired translation" and emphatically state that members should use the KJV. Technically Joseph's inspired version would be included, otherwise we would use that as our primary bible.

There are no disapproved portions of the JST. The Church leaders give their blessing for us to read, study and teach from the entire thing.

Robert J. Matthews of BYU sought and received permission from what was then the RLDS Church to go into its archives and carefully compare the original manuscript of the JST with what had been published. He found it to be reliable.

Since then, the Church of Jesus Christ has without reservation encouraged people to study and use the JST. This all happened before the 1980 LDS edition of the King James Bible was published, the first one to include footnoted excerpts from the JST.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I conversed with officials from the Community of Christ who reminded me of the occasion when Matthews was given permission to examine the manuscript. They were in town for the press conference announcing the publication of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

Edited to add:

The reason the entire JST is not included in the LDS edition of the KJV is that there is not enough room to do so.

Some years ago, I covered a reunion of the Scriptures Publication Committee, and it was remembered by speakers there that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had been an advocate for including more of the JST and less of the other study aids.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

There are no disapproved portions of the KJV. The Church leaders give their blessing for us to read, study and teach from the entire thing.

 

Robert J. Mathews of BYU sought and received permission from what was then the RLDS Church to go into its archives and carefully compare the original manuscript of the KJV with what had been published. He found it to be reliable.

 

Since then, the Church of Jesus Christ has without reservation encouraged people to study and use the KJV. This all happened before the 1980 LDS edition of the King James Bible was published, the first one to include footnoted excerpts from the KJV.

 

Just a couple of weeks ago, I conversed with officials from the Community of Christ who reminded me of the occasion when Matthews was given permission to examine the manuscript. They were in town for the press conference announcing the publication of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

 

Edited to add:

 

The reason the entire JST is not included in the LDS edition of the KJV is that there is not enough room to do so.

 

Some years ago, I covered a reunion of the Scriptures Publication Committee, and it was remembered by speakers there that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had been an advocate for including more of the JST and less of the other study aids.

If this is the case why wouldn't the church transition to full time use of the inspired translation instead of the KJV?

[Scott Lloyd]

If this is the case why wouldn't the church transition to full time use of the inspired translation instead of the KJV?

I could only guess at the reason, and I doubt that would be very useful for you.

 

Perhaps you could pose the question to one of the Brethren.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, I do use the JST full time. I'm always careful to observe the JST passages in the footnotes when I read the Bible. I possess a full copy copy of the Joseph Smith translation, and I often refer to it if not quote from it when giving talks and lessons and when writing for publication. My understanding is that the Church encourages everyone to do likewise.

 

Did you mean to ask, "Why doesn't the Church transition to exclusive use of the JST?"?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

It's not "pretty clear" to me, and I categorically reject the notion that the JST was intended to do anything less than correct the scriptures as they have been handed down to us.

 

Moreover, I understand that even "the earliest source documents for the Bible" are far removed from the original writings and thus do not disprove the JST.

 

That was certainly the attempt, but I don't think the results show that was the outcome. Functionally they work best as bible commentary. As we've gotten better and older sources (much better than what was available in the 1830s) we haven't gotten a Bible that is closer to the JST. 

 

But as I've said before, if you wish to get the answers to the test, the best way is to study the course material, not hope for God to hand you the answers on a plate. That's wishful thinking that doesn't seem to work out in real life. 

Edited August 24, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

That was certainly the attempt, but I don't think the results show that was the outcome. Functionally they work best as bible commentary.

Says you. I'm inclined to rely on them as a more perfect translation of the original intent.

 

As we've gotten better and older sources (much better than what was available in the 1830s) we haven't gotten a Bible that is closer to the JST. 

 

How close are the "better and older sources" to the original autographs? If not closer than one or two centuries, this does nothing to disprove the JST.

 

 

But as I've said before, if you wish to get the answers to the test, the best way is to study the course material, not hope for God to hand you the answers on a plate. That's wishful thinking that doesn't seem to work out in real life.

 

What does relying on the veracity of the Joseph Smith Translation as being what it purports to be have to do with "wishful thinking" or hoping "for God to hand you the answers on a plate"?

 

If you have the proof that the JST is not what it purports to be, let's see it. Otherwise, don't waste our time with sermonizing about "wishful thinking."

[KevinG]

The RLDS Church owned the copyright on the JST since 1867 (which is now expired).  They published a 1944 edition with corrections that they still own.

 

That may have influenced the LDS Church use of the KJV over the JST.

Edited August 24, 2015 by KevinG

[Avatar4321]

I've always thought the main purpose for the JST was to trigger a lot of the revelations we received in the D&C and PofGP. They read the Bible, get a question and the Lord reveals more

[Stargazer]

I noticed that she charges $25 a person for these calls. It would be interesting to know how many people are in one session.

We have friends (otherwise very typical members) who are enamoured with her. She is predicting an earthquake that will destroy the wasatch front and bring devastating floods from underground sources. And meteors are also supposed to be hitting the earth, as well as a huge banking collapse.

All of this is set to happen in September/October of this year so it should be an exciting autumn

 

Earthquakes and meteor/comet strikes are entirely biblical. See the Book of Revelation.  There's nothing new, there.

 

As for the banking collapse, well, it's happened before, and it will happen again.  The Chinese market meltdown that we're currently looking at was not unexpected.  There were signs that the Chinese government was trying to prevent various indicators from becoming public.  For one thing, they were jailing people who dared to do short sales on stocks.

 

Prophesying of events which are to be expected, and warned against in other for a, are hardly unique.

 

But many including the very elite will be deceived.  She is not the proper channel for this kind of information, at least in terms of claiming a special spiritual witness, and I believe she is preparing to set up an organization in competition with the LDS Church.  Perhaps not, and I hope not, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Stargazer]

The IT guy at my job in Utah was a fanatic about the "end times" and emergency preparedness, though I don't recall him ever talking about tent cities (wouldn't surprise me, though). Every time he came by he would start in on the amazing number of natural disasters going on around the world and how I'd better be prepared. He once said he wasn't taking a family vacation because he needed to stay near "home base" when some unspecified "big event" happened. He had food and water and guns and generators and all that stuff, and he would quote scripture and Ezra Taft Benson. Finally, he said, "You are LDS, aren't you?" I said I was an apostate, and he stopped talking to me. It really is an excellent and useful word.

 

I'll have to remember that! 

 

As to being prepared for natural disasters, the rest of you might live where you don't expect big events as a regular concern.  But I live in Washington state. 

 

We have tons of reasons to be concerned over natural disasters, and these could happen completely irrespective of the "end times".  For example, the Cascadia Subduction Zone goes off in an earthquake hissy fit (~ 9.0+ ) every 240 to 900 years.  "Like clockwork" seems a bit overblown, but the last time was in January 1700.  We are well within the danger zone, time-wise.  In addition we have 5 volcanoes, including the one reckoned to be the most dangerous volcano in the contiguous United States -- that would be Mt. Rainier.  It's not just the "Biggies", it's the smaller events.  We had a very nice 6.8 earthquake back in 2001 whose epicenter was just 14 miles from my house!  My house was built in 1895 and has experienced two other similar quakes since then.

 

One acquaintance of mine, who is perhaps a little more concerned than most about what might be coming down in my area, has anticipated the need to evacuate by foot to less-devastated areas (by foot because the 9.0+ quake would destroy virtually all roads).  He has reckoned on three primary routes out of the area, and has buried supply caches at convenient intervals along these routes (food, clothing, medical supplies, weapons and ammo).  So he would have his choice of directions to take,  He is perhaps wiser than some who have not prepared at all.

 

My stake has annual disaster drills including emergency response and communications (ham radio) exercises.  After the last earthquake in 2001 SLC called up our stake president and asked how things were, but he couldn't tell them because he didn't know.  I guess they lit a fire under him because he instituted a program of preparedness and communication.  In fact, the stakes surrounding ours also have ham radio nets weekly and I think some do emergency drills.  Surrounded by hazards, we take them seriously.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've always thought the main purpose for the JST was to trigger a lot of the revelations we received in the D&C and PofGP. They read the Bible, get a question and the Lord reveals more

That was certainly an important benefit that emanated from the work Joseph was called to undertake in producing a new translation of the Bible.

 

But I wouldn't call it the main purpose. I think that it is encompassed in the broader purpose of restoring plain and precious truths that had been lost in the process of the scriptures being handed down through the ages, as the Book of Mormon makes clear would happen.

 

We have seen demonstrated here in this very thread a very specific example of how a misunderstanding derived from wording in the standard King James Version of the Bible can be overcome by the enlightenment we have received through the JST.

 

Incidentally, it bears repeating that the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith -- Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price are in actuality excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation. Thus, a portion of the JST is indeed canonized.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is some instructive material I have found on the Joseph Smith Translation, its purpose and history, both from the late Robert J. Matthews, to whom I believe we owe a a debt of gratitude for his work in making the JST more accessible to us today and for helping us to have confidence in using it.

 

The articles are somewhat dated: Both were published prior to the 1979 publication of the LDS edition of the King James Bible as we have it today with the inclusion of JST excerpts in footnotes and an appendix. But they contain useful information notwithstanding.

 

The first is a 1972 Ensign article:

 

 

We should be appreciative of the great spiritual heritage and source of inspiration that has come to us through the Bible, yet readers the world over have recognized for many years that the Bible has not come to us in its original purity and plainness. (See 1 Ne. 13:21–28, 32; Moses 1:40–41.)

The Prophet Joseph noticed also that the angel Moroni quoted some passages that differed from those found in our present King James Version. (JS—H 1:36–40.) Later, in explaining how he felt about the Bible, the Prophet said: “From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 245.)

He also declared: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (DHC, vol. 6, p. 57.)

The thoughtful reader of the Bible soon observes that there are many passages that are vague and hard to understand and that seem to be incomplete. Some passages also appear to be contradictory. We understand that there are not so many things in the King James Version of the Bible that are incorrect, but rather, because of faulty transmission and missing parts, that which remains is often unclear and devoid of its full meaning. Joseph Smith’s work with the Bible restores some of the missing parts and causes what we have to be more meaningful.

 

The second is from a Q and A article in the New Era of April 1977. Here, he alludes to his own research in verifying the accuracy of Joseph Smith's new translation as it had been published by the RLDS Church.

 

He also said the translation is "increasing in use and acceptance in our church today," foreshadowing what would happen two years later with the publication of the 1979 LDS edition of the King James Bible containing the JST excerpts. I believe that, more than anything else, has helped us to understand that we are free to study and quote from the JST and that there is great benefit to be derived therefrom.

 

 

Perhaps the principal reason why the Church has not published or officially adopted the new translation is that the Prophet Joseph Smith was unable to attend to an authorized publication of it before his death. The Church records show that the Prophet wanted to publish the translation and was in the process of preparing the manuscript for that purpose at the time of his death but was hindered by persecution and lack of finances. As recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord indicated that He wished to have it published. (See D&C 124:89.) It is also very probable that the Prophet would have made some additional corrections had he lived longer.

However, at the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the manuscripts and documents pertaining to the translation were retained by Emma Smith, the Prophet’s widow, who would not give them to the Quorum of the Twelve although Elder Willard Richards, apparently acting on behalf of President Young, requested the new translation of her. Consequently, when the Church moved to the Salt Lake Valley, it did so without the new translation of the Bible.

Subsequently, the Reorganized church (RLDS) was organized in Illinois, and in 1866 Sister Emma Smith gave the manuscripts into the custody of that church. In 1867 the RLDS published the first edition of the translation and obtained a copyright for it. The RLDS church still has the original manuscripts and the copyright and is therefore the sole publisher.

Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had neither the original manuscripts nor the copyright, it would have been quite difficult, if not impossible, for the Church to publish the translation, even if it had wanted to. In Nauvoo in 1845, Dr. John M. Bernhisel made a partial copy from the original, and the Church has this in its offices in Salt Lake City, but it contains less than half of the corrections and is not suitable for publication.

Because the translation was published by the RLDS church, some questions have existed as to whether it had been published accurately. However, research in the past few years with the original manuscripts has indicated that the Inspired Version of the Bible, published by the RLDS church, is an accurate representation of the sense of the original manuscripts prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes. Furthermore, it seems to be increasing in use and acceptance in our church today.

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I could only guess at the reason, and I doubt that would be very useful for you.

 

Perhaps you could pose the question to one of the Brethren.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, I do use the JST full time. I'm always careful to observe the JST passages in the footnotes when I read the Bible. I possess a full copy copy of the Joseph Smith translation, and I often refer to it if not quote from it when giving talks and lessons and when writing for publication. My understanding is that the Church encourages everyone to do likewise.

 

Did you mean to ask, "Why doesn't the Church transition to exclusive use of the JST?"?

No. I meant what I asked. Why doesn't the church use the inspired version as it's translated bible of choice. It certainly could, yet it doesn't. It's interesting. I'd ask the brethren if there were a way for me to do that, but there's not. I can ask my Bishop or SP but they won't know any more than I do and they don't have authority to give an answer for the church. Alas, I'm left with a relatively simple question left unanswered. Why use the KJV at all when we have the inspired version?

 

As far as not having enough space to print the full translated version instead of the KJV- I don't know what you mean by this. Are you claiming the church can't print the inspired version instead of the KJV or add additional pages, or make it all available electronically as the primary bible source? This doesn't make sense to me.

[Stargazer]

No. I meant what I asked. Why doesn't the church use the inspired version as it's translated bible of choice. It certainly could, yet it doesn't. It's interesting. I'd ask the brethren if there were a way for me to do that, but there's not. I can ask my Bishop or SP but they won't know any more than I do and they don't have authority to give an answer for the church. Alas, I'm left with a relatively simple question left unanswered. Why use the KJV at all when we have the inspired version?

 

As far as not having enough space to print the full translated version instead of the KJV- I don't know what you mean by this. Are you claiming the church can't print the inspired version instead of the KJV or add additional pages, or make it all available electronically as the primary bible source? This doesn't make sense to me.

 

The thing I heard is that Joseph never finished the JST and there may be errors in the parts he did do, but had not yet gone back to.  The other thing is that the copyright is owned by the RLDS.  The elements of the JST that the Church considers doctrinal or authoritative are contained in the LDS edition of the Bible, both by reference and by inclusion.

[jkwilliams]

The thing I heard is that Joseph never finished the JST and there may be errors in the parts he did do, but had not yet gone back to.  The other thing is that the copyright is owned by the RLDS.  The elements of the JST that the Church considers doctrinal or authoritative are contained in the LDS edition of the Bible, both by reference and by inclusion.

 

The text has been around long enough that it's in the public domain, so that's not an issue. I don't really know what the criteria were for including JST excerpts in the 1979 KJV edition, but I don't think that those are the only parts considered authoritative. What I do find interesting is this notion that, because Joseph Smith never finished it, it must remain unfinished.

[ALarson]

The text has been around long enough that it's in the public domain, so that's not an issue. I don't really know what the criteria were for including JST excerpts in the 1979 KJV edition, but I don't think that those are the only parts considered authoritative. What I do find interesting is this notion that, because Joseph Smith never finished it, it must remain unfinished.

Why do you believe our church only uses a portion of the Joseph Smith Translation when the entire thing is available if it's not a copyright issue?

 

Also, I wonder why another Prophet didn't take up where Joseph ended and finish it if it was important to do?

Edited August 25, 2015 by ALarson