bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help!
Popular Post Calm Posted June 27, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! Absolutely not, except possibly in the case of excerpts from the JST and then you should teach the varied forms that took (not all were likely revealed). They are included under "aids", not scripture: "The new edition of the Book of Mormon carries the very descriptive subtitle “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” The Doctrine and Covenants now includes two additional revelations and the official statement announcing the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. And there is a new edition of the Pearl of Great Price. All four contain the new system of footnotes and cross-references. All have new chapter headings. In the Triple Combination there is an index of 416 pages and 4 pages of Church history maps. Every aid that could be thought of was considered. Every one that was possible was included. The objective was this: to organize the helps in the scriptures in such a way that anyone who can read may have the scriptures opened to them... Already you can see that these references include all of the standard works. It took many years and many hundreds of workers to organize this information for us." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/using-the-new-scriptures?lang=eng I would suggest using the info in the intro of the Bible Dictionary to demonstrate attitude of leaders to the type of scholarship that created the footnotes: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/introduction.html?lang=eng "This dictionary provides a concise collection of definitions and explanations of Bible topics. It is based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works. A variety of doctrinal, cultural, and historical subjects are treated, and a short summary is included for each book of the Bible. Many of the entries draw on the work of Bible scholars and are subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light. This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical and cultural views set forth." Edited June 27, 2017 by Calm 6
Amulek Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 The footnotes are, for the most part, more of a "compilation of scripture information" than scripture themselves. See for example, this talk by President Packer which talks a bit about how they came into being: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/scriptures?lang=eng I suppose one possible exception to the footnotes not being considered scripture would be those footnotes that contain excerpts from the JST. I don't have a problem with considering an alternate translation of scripture to be scripture as well. 1
Jane_Doe Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 29 minutes ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! Totally not. They are useful study help written by men. 3
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Absolutely not. They are included under "aids", not scripture: "The new edition of the Book of Mormon carries the very descriptive subtitle “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” The Doctrine and Covenants now includes two additional revelations and the official statement announcing the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. And there is a new edition of the Pearl of Great Price. All four contain the new system of footnotes and cross-references. All have new chapter headings. In the Triple Combination there is an index of 416 pages and 4 pages of Church history maps. Every aid that could be thought of was considered. Every one that was possible was included. The objective was this: to organize the helps in the scriptures in such a way that anyone who can read may have the scriptures opened to them... Already you can see that these references include all of the standard works. It took many years and many hundreds of workers to organize this information for us." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/using-the-new-scriptures?lang=eng Thank you--it is amazing what can turn into a controversial question and answer. In my research I did learn our Bible Dictionary was based off the Cambridge University Press Bible Dictionary and I had never bothered to read the Bible Dictionary preface before. I think it is very clear what it is and is not. https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-1/lesson-43-tools-for-searching-the-scriptures?lang=eng Bible Dictionary This dictionary provides a concise collection of definitions and explanations of Bible topics. It is based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works. A variety of doctrinal, cultural, and historical subjects are treated, and a short summary is included for each book of the Bible. Many of the entries draw on the work of Bible scholars and are subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light. This dictionary is provided to help your study of the scriptures and is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine or an endorsement of the historical and cultural views set forth. 1
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, Amulek said: The footnotes are, for the most part, more of a "compilation of scripture information" than scripture themselves. See for example, this talk by President Packer which talks a bit about how they came into being: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/scriptures?lang=eng I suppose one possible exception to the footnotes not being considered scripture would be those footnotes that contain excerpts from the JST. I don't have a problem with considering an alternate translation of scripture to be scripture as well. So the JST is not officially considered scripture? From this reference, I would say it would also be considered an "aid." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation 1
CV75 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 44 minutes ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! No but I like them anyway.
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 My husband and I were on opposite sides of this debate but he researched and came over to my side. 2
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 Is it rude to tell your Bishopric they were all wrong?
Calm Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Here is some history, though it sounds like you have likely seen it already. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the-church-publishes-a-new-triple-combination?lang=eng A lot of people think the chapter headings are also scripture, but they were not there originally and they get changed as well based on scholarship so they don't qualify as scripture. 1
ksfisher Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Is it rude to tell your Bishopric they were all wrong? It depends on how you do it. 1
Calm Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 1 minute ago, bsjkki said: Is it rude to tell your Bishopric they were all wrong? Not if done kindly. I would suggest printing up the info and giving it to them as a "you might be interested in this" if you are not good friends. If you are good friends, I would just say "you need to change your mind and here's why..." and then give them the info. 1
Calm Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, bsjkki said: So the JST is not officially considered scripture? From this reference, I would say it would also be considered an "aid." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation JST is made up of a variety of processes. Only that part which was revealed or canonized should be considered scripture, imo. This may be hard to determine for some of it. More detail: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST) https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng&_r=1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-joseph-smith-translation-plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/joseph-smiths-efforts-to-publish-his-bible-translation?lang=eng "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. An official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974, contained these words: “The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. … “When the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price offer information relative to biblical interpretation, these should be given preference in writing and teaching. But when these sources of latter-day revelation do not provide significant information which is available in the Inspired Version, then this version may be used.”" https://www.lds.org/new-era/1977/04/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng Edited June 27, 2017 by Calm
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Not if done kindly. I would suggest printing up the info and giving it to them as a "you might be interested in this" if you are not good friends. If you are good friends, I would just say "you need to change your mind and here's why..." and then give them the info. You are very tactful...it was actually a bit of a brouhaha but I get to leave the discussion to my spouse since he is the SS President. I was hoping for added resources and thank you all for your opinions and the help. The poor Sunday School teacher (not me) got thrown under the bus and needs a bit of defending.
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, Calm said: JST is made up of a variety of processes. Only that part which was revealed or canonized should be considered scripture, imo. This may be hard to determine for some of it. More detail: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST) https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng&_r=1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-joseph-smith-translation-plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/joseph-smiths-efforts-to-publish-his-bible-translation?lang=eng "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. An official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974, contained these words: “The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. … “When the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price offer information relative to biblical interpretation, these should be given preference in writing and teaching. But when these sources of latter-day revelation do not provide significant information which is available in the Inspired Version, then this version may be used.”" https://www.lds.org/new-era/1977/04/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng Thank you!
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: This was a question brought up in a youth Sunday School class. How would you answer this question? Is it a straight yes or no or more nuanced than that? If you have a good resource that makes it clear, please provide a link. Thank you for your help! No. The footnotes by and large are horribly dated and not terribly good even when first released. The #1 thing I wish the church would do was get a team compiling new footnotes for the scriptures. 1
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said: No. The footnotes by and large are horribly dated and not terribly good even when first released. The #1 thing I wish the church would do was get a team compiling new footnotes for the scriptures. Thank you for that perspective...I don't think I can source that back to lds.org though...I believe you and had no idea. I just hear how amazing they are.
clarkgoble Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Thank you for that perspective...I don't think I can source that back to lds.org though...I believe you and had no idea. I just hear how amazing they are. Really? Most of them were computer generated back in the 70's with primitive technology and contain almost no real information. I mean how many TG "word footnoted" do we need in the footnotes? I think anyone who uses alternative translations which often list quotations, paraphrases, alternative translations, and idioms don't realize what they're missing. That's compounded by the footnotes only doing a so-so job explaining idiomatic or archaic uses of KJV. The one I mentioned in a recent thread was brass. The use of JST is useful in the footnotes of course, although even that could easily be expanded by recent discoveries and analysis. The D&C is probably the place where a ton of work for the Joseph Smith papers and recent scholarship would help. Honestly, if I were financially independent I'd just spend six years coming out with a half decent set of footnotes for the scriptures. I'd put up an app and free website ala lds.org. I'd probably have a button that switches between verse view, paragraph view, and poetic view. There's so much more that could be in the footnotes that would save people from bad readings. Edited June 27, 2017 by clarkgoble
bsjkki Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 Just now, clarkgoble said: Really? Most of them were computer generated back in the 70's and contain almost no real information. I mean how many TG "word footnoted" do we need in the footnotes? I think anyone who uses alternative translations which often list quotations, paraphrases, alternative translations, and idioms don't realize what they're missing. That's compounded by the footnotes only doing a so-so job explaining idiomatic or archaic uses of KJV. The one I mentioned in a recent thread was brass. The use of JST is useful in the footnotes of course, although even that could easily be expanded by recent discoveries and analysis. The D&C is probably the place where a ton of work for the Joseph Smith papers and recent scholarship would help. I will have to start reading alternative translations and elevate my knowledge. It's a case of I don't know what I don't know until I start researching stuff and then I realize I don't know much.
Calm Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Really? Most of them were computer generated back in the 70's with primitive technology and contain almost no real information. I mean how many TG "word footnoted" do we need in the footnotes? I think anyone who uses alternative translations which often list quotations, paraphrases, alternative translations, and idioms don't realize what they're missing. That's compounded by the footnotes only doing a so-so job explaining idiomatic or archaic uses of KJV. The one I mentioned in a recent thread was brass. The use of JST is useful in the footnotes of course, although even that could easily be expanded by recent discoveries and analysis. LDS.org articles and manuals however often gush on how footnotes are tying together things that we missed not knowing the original language. From what I skimmed it was felt a lot of insight could be gained by just knowing the multiple uses in different scriptures of the same Hebrew/Greek word (which iirc is how Strong's function though they also divide usages). Edited June 28, 2017 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Amulek said: The footnotes are, for the most part, more of a "compilation of scripture information" than scripture themselves. See for example, this talk by President Packer which talks a bit about how they came into being: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/scriptures?lang=eng Yes, Elder Packer (he was not Pres of the Twelve at the time) provides a nice summary of the long effort to create a new footnote system in the 1970s, and I recall the publication of the Topical Guide separately, before it came out with the new edition of the Bible. Thanks for providing that article. I recall my friend Prof Ellis Rasmussen (whom he mentions) showing me some pages of the projected new edition back in the early 70s. He wanted my opinion on the new system, and it seemed good to me. Also, one of Ellis' students had written his master's thesis on corrected readings from the Original and Printers Manuscripts, and many of those were put into the new edition of the Book of Mormon. One thing Elder Packer was unaware of was that the marginal translation readings in the 1611 KJV had long since been excluded, even though they should have been left in -- the translators considered them as valid as the majority readings, and thus scripture. 3 hours ago, Amulek said: I suppose one possible exception to the footnotes not being considered scripture would be those footnotes that contain excerpts from the JST. I don't have a problem with considering an alternate translation of scripture to be scripture as well. Only those parts of the JST which were separately published as revelations are actually Scripture (Book of Moses, and Joseph Smith -- Matthew). The remainder are merely helpful notes.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: LDS.org articles and manuals however often gush on how footnotes are tying together things that we missed not knowing the original language. From what I skimmed it was felt a lot of insight could be gained by just knowing the multiple uses in different scriptures of the same Hebrew/Greek word (which iirc is how Strong's function though they also divide usages). Yes, and so much of that can easily be found online at a host of helpful websites.
Recommended Posts