Julie Rowe

[jkwilliams]

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?

I have no idea. When I was young, I remember hearing that the RLDS church jealously guarded the manuscripts, and the LDS church didn't feel they could validate the text without seeing the manuscripts. As I recall, for the 1979 edition of the LDS KJV, the LDS church had access to the manuscripts.

 

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

I don't know. Maybe it wasn't as important as we think. Joseph Smith didn't do much with it after 1833.

[HappyJackWagon]

The Joseph Smith Translation has restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng

 

The RLDS church published the first edition in 1867. I assume this was a complete Bible. Does anyone know what was "incomplete" with the JST?

 

It seems at the very least that if the church wanted to use the JST they could and then fill in any small holes with KJV, instead of the other way around. They don't seem interested in doing so.

Edited August 25, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/01/what-role-should-the-jst-play-in-lds-biblical-studies/

This is a great article about the JST by Julie M. Smith.  In it she talks about a framework that a Robert J. Matthews developed (I haven’t read his original material, but that might be an interesting resource as well).  The JST contains four types of material:

 

(1) restoration of the text to the way that it originally read

(2) material that was not originally part of the biblical text

(3) Joseph Smith’s commentary

(4) material added for doctrinal harmonization

 

I believe the average member just looks at item #1 as the only way the JST functions, but that’s certainly not the case.  When you look at the other ways the JST works as commentary or harmonization it really opens things up. 

 

Also, there are plenty of examples where the doctrine in a JST verse actually conflicts with later doctrine that Joseph preached/revealed.  This shows us how Joseph’s ideas were evolving throughout his life.  A central tenant of the ongoing restoration that we are a part of, but one that our modern culture seems to reject on a regular basis under the pretense that God’s laws don’t change and that things are the same as they’ve always been throughout history.   Poor assumptions that limit understanding and growth.  

[ALarson]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng

 

The RLDS church published the first edition in 1867. I assume this was a complete Bible. Does anyone know what was "incomplete" with the JST?

 

It seems at the very least that if the church wanted to use the JST they could and then fill in any small holes with KJV. They don't seem interested in doing so.

From what I've read, the church leaders have not addressed why they don't use the entire JST.  

[HappyJackWagon]

From what I've read, the church leaders have not addressed why they don't use the entire JST.  

I think Hope_for_things just hit on an important possibility. If the church used the entire JST as the "definitive bible" then one would expect it to be complete, accurate, and harmonious with later teachings of JS and current teachings of the church. I wonder if an analysis would prove it to be harmonious with current teachings.

[Stargazer]

I think Hope_for_things just hit on an important possibility. If the church used the entire JST as the "definitive bible" then one would expect it to be complete, accurate, and harmonious with later teachings of JS and current teachings of the church. I wonder if an analysis would prove it to be harmonious with current teachings.

 

Start reading.  We want to see your report next year about this time.

[jkwilliams]

Start reading.  We want to see your report next year about this time.

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

[HappyJackWagon]

Start reading.  We want to see your report next year about this time.

It sounds like an interesting and worthy project for someone much more qualified than I am. I'm happy to leave that to the scholars

[jkwilliams]

It sounds like an interesting and worthy project for someone much more qualified than I am. I'm happy to leave that to the scholars

It would be interesting to do a diff comparison between the KJV and the JST. I'm sure someone has done it.

[Stargazer]

It sounds like an interesting and worthy project for someone much more qualified than I am. I'm happy to leave that to the scholars

 

Slacker.

[Gray]

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

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.

 

 

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."

 

That's not really how it works. There's no evidence that the JST has restored any lost parts of the text, or any evidence that prayer or meditation or concentration is the right way to achieve that goal. In fact it makes changes to New Testament passages that the Book of Mormon does not. For example:

 

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon). And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible).

And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

This looks like a clarification of doctrine rather than a restoration of lost text. 

 

If it helps any, FairMormon comes to more or less the same conclusion about the JST as I do:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_Bible/Joseph_Smith_Translation/As_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text

 

 

 

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is better thought of as an "inspired commentary" rather than a "translation"

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary"--Joseph was not usually restoring 'lost text' (though in some few cases he may have). The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader.

 

Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

....

 

 

 

Matthews: "To regard the New Translation...as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text"

Edited August 25, 2015 by Gray

[ALarson]

I think Hope_for_things just hit on an important possibility. If the church used the entire JST as the "definitive bible" then one would expect it to be complete, accurate, and harmonious with later teachings of JS and current teachings of the church. I wonder if an analysis would prove it to be harmonious with current teachings.

I think this is the case too.  Maybe someone on here has done a more in-depth study on this?  All I've read is that the JST contains some contradictions and errors.  

 

Maybe start a new thread on this?

Edited August 25, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

Back to the OP- Funny story.

 

Yesterday I was speaking with my mom and I mentioned Julie Rowe and how many in our area are kind of pseudo-followers and believers in her prophesies. I described the prophesies and the timelines associated. She'd never heard of Julie Rowe before.

 

She laughed and said, "That's just crazy. No one knows when the apocalypse will start. Don't get me wrong, those things are all going to happen...and soon, but we don't know when. But it will be really soon."

 

Hmmm.

 

I just smiled and said, "Well, in any case I suppose we're one day closer."

[jkwilliams]

Here's a comparison of the JST with the KJV for Genesis 1:

 

This is an off-topic derail. Removed

[Ushuaia]

Back to the OP- Funny story.

 

Yesterday I was speaking with my mom and I mentioned Julie Rowe and how many in our area are kind of pseudo-followers and believers in her prophesies. I described the prophesies and the timelines associated. She'd never heard of Julie Rowe before.

 

She laughed and said, "That's just crazy. No one knows when the apocalypse will start. Don't get me wrong, those things are all going to happen...and soon, but we don't know when. But it will be really soon."

 

Hmmm.

 

I just smiled and said, "Well, in any case I suppose we're one day closer."

 

I really, really appreciate your response to your mom. (And, I'm also glad your mom is not on board with Julie Rowe. What she's peddling feels dark to me.)

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not really how it works. There's no evidence that the JST has restored any lost parts of the text, or any evidence that prayer or meditation or concentration is the right way to achieve that goal. In fact it makes changes to New Testament passages that the Book of Mormon does not. For example:

 

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon). And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible).

And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

This looks like a clarification of doctrine rather than a restoration of lost text. 

 

If it helps any, FairMormon comes to more or less the same conclusion about the JST as I do:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_Bible/Joseph_Smith_Translation/As_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text

 

....

Even if it is acknowledged that changes in the JST don't convey the original intent of the author in every instance, the JST must be seen by professing Latter-day Saints as conveying the mind of God via revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who regarded it as a "branch" of his calling as a prophet. It hardly does it justice to call it a "commentary."

[Scott Lloyd]

It would be interesting to do a diff comparison between the KJV and the JST. I'm sure someone has done it.

You mean like this?

 

Here's the Old Testament rendition by the same author.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

You mean like this?

 

Thanks. I knew someone had to have done it.

[Gray]

Even if it is acknowledged that changes in the JST don't convey the original intent of the author in every instance, the JST must be seen by professing Latter-day Saints as conveying the mind of God via revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who regarded it as a "branch" of his calling as a prophet. It hardly does it justice to call it a "commentary."

 

You may believe that it functions like that, but there is no "must". Professing Latter-day Saints (including those at FairMormon) are at liberty to view the JST in any number of ways. As inspired commentary, as revelation, as restoration, as a clarification of church doctrines, or many other possibilities including all or some of the above.  

[Scott Lloyd]

You may believe that it functions like that, but there is no "must". Professing Latter-day Saints (including those at FairMormon) are at liberty to view the JST in any number of ways. As inspired commentary, as revelation, as restoration, as a clarification of church doctrines, or many other possibilities including all or some of the above.  

None of those things are inconsistent with the others.

[Gray]

None of those things are inconsistent with the others.

 

I agree, they can all be believed by the same person. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's my report on an interesting symposium lecture given a few years ago by Professor Kent P. Jackson of BYU on the Joseph Smith Translation.

 

The whole thing is worth a read, but here's a noteworthy excerpt:

 

Joseph Smith said he believed in the Bible "as it ought to be, as it came from the pen of the original writers" (Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, p. 256).

"This statement tells us that the Bible was not as it ought to be, something the Prophet emphasized in numerous ways throughout his life," said Kent P. Jackson, BYU professor of ancient scripture, on Feb. 23 at the symposium on the King James Bible and the Restoration.

"And it tells us that the original documents, the words first spoken and recorded by inspired men in their own language, constitute the true and preferred text of the Bible."

Brother Jackson's presentation, one of two he delivered at the symposium, focused on the King James Version and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. He noted that the Prophet began working on what is now called the Joseph Smith Translation in June 1830. Joseph and his contemporaries called it the "New Translation."

"Beginning with Genesis, the Prophet worked his way through every part of the Bible, revising existing text and adding new material by inspiration from God," Brother Jackson said. "He left behind 446 pages of manuscripts of the New Translation as well as his printed Bible on which he marked insertions, deletion points or changes that were on the manuscript."

Brother Jackson affirmed, "Joseph Smith's work on the Bible is one of the keystones of the Restoration. It is a profound witness of the divinity of his prophetic calling. It is the source of much important revelation to the Church of the latter days."

Two sections in the JST — Genesis 1-6 and Matthew 24 — are canonized in the Church as part of the Pearl of Great Price (Moses and Joseph Smith — Matthew), Brother Jackson observed.

"Throughout the pages of the New Translation there are passages that clarify and enlighten, making the Bible alive with inspired additions and rewordings," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

You may believe that it functions like that, but there is no "must". Professing Latter-day Saints (including those at FairMormon) are at liberty to view the JST in any number of ways. As inspired commentary, as revelation, as restoration, as a clarification of church doctrines, or many other possibilities including all or some of the above.  

 

Sometimes we have misunderstandings about things like the JST because of the way terms are defined.  Take “revelation” for instance.  Some might define it as words that God speaks directly and clearly to the mind of a human.  While others might see revelation as gradual realization over decades and centuries that ends up culminating in some future enlightened perspective, perhaps the changing views on racial discrimination in the church could be viewed as revelatory. 

 

What seems clear to me is that we have examples of both kinds of revelation occurring throughout history.   Some people see more prominence in the simplistic God talking to human revelation, while others might relate better with the evolutionary type of revelation method. 

 

I’m open to both possibilities, however I reject the idea that Joseph wasn’t experimenting as he went along with the JST or D&C or BoA, you name it.  Did he sometimes hear the words of God in his mind, I’m open to that possibility, but he was at other times just speculating, experimenting, justifying, defending, expanding, etc. 

[hope_for_things]

Robert Cloward of FARMS wrote this comparing the JST process to likening the scriptures to our modern day.  Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998, pages 233-234.

 

 

Isaiah foresaw both the fate and the future restoration of Jerusalem and her people. Nephi … likened Isaiah’s words to his people in a new prophecy, showing how Nephite writings would advance the Lord’s work in the latter days. Book of Mormon prophets perpetuated Nephi’s likening among their people until the time of Moroni.  Then, the Savior and the resurrected Moroni taught the significance of Nephi’s likening for this dispensation to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, in turn, replaced Isaiah’s words in his inspired translation of the Bible with his new understanding of how they had been likened to him and to the Lord’s latter-day work.

 

In this process, Isaiah’s sealed book was reinterpreted as Nephi’s gold plates and as Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. Isaiah’s dust of death was reinterpreted as Nephi’s source of renewed life and as Joseph Smith’s Cumorah. Isaiah’s “learned” and “not learned” both denied access to spiritual vision, became Nephi’s future translator, Joseph the seer, and his foil, Professor Charles Anthon. This is the process of likening. Prophets do it readily. Students of the scriptures are urged to liken as well. When readers in any era are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, there is no impropriety in their giving old scripture new meaning for their lives. As readers do this, the Lord can reveal new truths to them and enlarge their understanding.

 

However, not all the early saints viewed things this way.  I found this W.W.Phelps quote on how he envisioned the JST. The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol.2, No.14, p.106

 

 

As to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men. As the church of Christ will soon have the scriptures, in their original purity it may not be amiss for us to show a few of the gross errors, or, as they might be termed, contradictions.

 

Quite different perspectives from a lot of people.  

 

[ttribe]

How did the Julie Rowe thread end up as a debate on the JST?

 

Future derailers will be removed from the thread instead of their posts.