JST relied on bible commentary by Adam Clarke, new research shows

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I don't know about anyone else, but my first thought was "Thank goodness an LDS scholar at BYU found this first!"

Can you imagine what the apologetics on this would look like if that weren't the case?  

Pretty much the same? I mean there's only so many ways to interpret the data.

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Don't you mean as "uninspired?" JS said the apocrypha were uninspired too, but the Lord did say that much was useful information in the apocrypha. Just because the Lord didn't inspire the work, doesn't mean it is false.

Edit: pasted wrong text

Yeah, bad word choice on my part. I don't want to say it's not useful, although I tend to see it as an erotic or romantic poem later repurposed for mystical or religious allegorical purposes. It has of course an important place in the history of western thought. I don't see much theological value to it. Others might disagree. Quite surprising to me Adam Miller has put out a paraphrase of it for instance. I've not read that yet but I'm very curious as to the value he sees in it.

Edited January 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't have the time right now to read the podcast transcript. Is there any mention of time frames on when they think Joseph started using Clarke's or if any changes in Book of Mormon biblical text can be linked to Clarke's?

So cribbing from Clarke's for revisions to the Bible would not mean much, IMO, but if it could be shown that Clarke's was also used in parts of the Book of Mormon, that would raise more issues. So does anyone know how far back it can be shown the Joseph was exposed to Clarke's?

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So cribbing from Clarke's for revisions to the Bible would not mean much, IMO, but if it could be shown that Clarke's was also used in parts of the Book of Mormon, that would raise more issues. So does anyone know how far back it can be shown the Joseph was exposed to Clarke's?

Well, before worrying yourself too much about that, what part of Clarke's do you think JS may possibly have used in translating the BoM? There are some Protestant-type issues in the BoM which were of somewhat general concern in JS' day - like baptizing children. The whole premise of the BoM was a common speculation - that the lost tribes or any of the peoples of the Bible were in the Americas. That can be easily demonstrated with several books and numerous articles written on the subject before the BoM was published. There really can be almost no end to possible speculations, so for the topic to be relevant, do you have some point(s) in mind from Clarke's that you feel appear in the BoM?

Honestly, almost any library of the day may have had Clarke's Commentary. Biblical commentaries were not extremely rare. All JS had to do is go to the local city library, and he could probably find a commentary. Further, any publisher of religious books would probably have one, so I think any point you are trying to make this way is going to end up being moot in the end - JS always had access to Bibles and biblical commentaries.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So cribbing from Clarke's for revisions to the Bible would not mean much, IMO, but if it could be shown that Clarke's was also used in parts of the Book of Mormon, that would raise more issues. So does anyone know how far back it can be shown the Joseph was exposed to Clarke's?

If it is really no big deal that Joseph "cribbed" Clarke's bible commentary and passed it off as his own "translation" of the Bible, it goes to show how low the expectations are for Joseph's honesty and revelatory skills.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They may well. That's the part of study it out that's important. God then tells you elements that are right or may repurpose other elements. That's true in the Book of Mormon as well. I don't think that means the quoted or paraphrased elements are somehow problematic. It's like saying Mosiah 3:25 is somehow less inspired because it includes a paraphrase from Hamlet as a way of translating what was on the plates. 

Speaking only for myself I've certainly felt like the spirit would use other books our sources to answer prayers about a topic or passage. If that's true for someone as limited as myself, wouldn't it be more true for Joseph? For instance I argued in the other thread that Joseph was able to restore the endowment by being told elements within Masonry were correct. The danger, and I think the Masonic example highlights this well, is assuming the overall context of what is used is correct. (For instance the Masonic legends of its origin are almost certainly false) Likewise assuming the meaning in its original context is the same as it's place as an answer in the next context. (The elements of Masonry in the endowment frequently have a different meaning there - yet a meaning that corresponds well to texts from the 2cd temple period through the 3rd century)

But to give an example, there are a few places in the D&C that quote Song of Solomon even thought the JST process had Joseph designating it as false. (Perhaps after reading Clarke given the time frame of the Song of Solomon translation)

I agree that the portions borrowed/re-purposed from other sources shouldn't be considered less important or somehow illegitimate.  I believe virtually everything in the human enterprise contains large elements of borrowed/re-purposed knowledge, this is how collective knowledge works as incremental changes are made and built upon existing ideas and concepts.  Finding a truly unique idea that isn't related in anyway to something else is nearly impossible to do.  

Joseph was immersed in biblical language in his environment.  I can see him deliberately copying parts of the KJV at times, but at other times there are situations where multiple short phrases (3-5 words long) from different parts of the bible are found in just one verse in the BoM.  I imagine that Joseph wasn't conscientiously copying those segments, but that this is an example of him being so immersed in biblical language that these phrases were coming to his mind more spontaneously, rather than him deliberate copying these segments from different books in the bible.  

Wondering if you've ever seen parts of this thesis by Colby Townsend, you may find it interesting when it comes to biblical language in the BoM.  

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/appropriation-and-adaptation-j-material-book-mormon

 

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

Wow.  That's a pretty damning statement.  I admit this is not my area of expertise, so I'll be interested to read other's input and comments on this.

Thanks for posting about it, Gray!

Yippie! It's a fake church. We don't have to go anymore, or pay tithes.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yippie! It's a fake church. We don't have to go anymore, or pay tithes.

Awfully snarky & condescending. I suppose we can be certain that evidence Joseph plagiarized the commentary into an "inspired translation" would not affect the way you attend church regularly and pay a full tithe.

Edited January 18, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you expound on this idea, are you saying the borrowed ideas you would value as less important than the ideas that you believe aren't borrowed? 

No. Not at all. I'm saying that the entire Book of Moses is completely "Adam Clarke-free." Enoch content, Moses background, expounded Adam and Eve material, Master Mahan, etc. You name it. 

I would also note that we really have no evidence that the book of Moses doesn't also contain elements borrowed from another source of some kind. 

Well, that's where it gets interesting. For example, the Book of Moses records a man named Mahijah confronting and contending with Enoch. Extra-biblical sources demonstrably unavailable to Joseph Smith (and not in Adam Clarke) likewise record a man named Mahijah or Mehujah (vowels differ) contending with Enoch. So, since this isn't in Clarke's commentary, and Joseph Smith couldn't have had access to the sources (they weren't available in English until after his time), the presence of authentic Enoch content in an expansion of Genesis is a witness of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And without Clarke's help . . .  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the smartest default assumption is to not take the JST “long insertions” as canon, and to not include them with the Bible, which by canon, is “the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Viewing these first two types of changes as representative of the first kind of revelation I mentioned ("Lord's mind to a prophet") is a matter of faith until a primary textual source is produced, at which point either the mind of the Lord or the discerning use of a scholarly commentary might be used to further understanding of their respective kinds. Note that faith in one proposition and waiting for evidence of another each represent admissions of ignorance, without which no one gets anywhere.

The church defines canon as the four standard works.  Your definition sounds more like a personal position you can take about what you believe is inspired, but the definition of the word canon as I'm familiar with it, is how an institution like the LDS church has defined its authoritative scripture, and in this case its the quad that you can buy at the distribution center, thats canon.  

I would argue that there is no scholarly evidence that can tell you whether any statement in scripture is the "Lord's mind to a prophet".  That kind of a question cannot and should not be examined from a scholarly perspective, but that kind of a question can only be in the category of personal subjective belief.  

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

“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.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation But I suppose that if one desires, he may treat the JST excerpts and footnotes as canon.

This quote seems to me to be referring to the inspired version published in 1867 by the Reorganized CoJCoLDS.  Since portions of that Inspired Version are in our LDS canon, like the book of Moses and the section in Matthew (these are in the PoGP,  but are part of this JST or Inspired Version of the Bible) then I think those sections are considered canon.  And I would say that the footnotes in the LDS standard works Old and New Testament also qualify as canon because they have been published by the church and specifically integrated into the curriculum for correlated manuals.  My experiences on Sunday tell me that these portions of the JST are accepted by members as authoritative canon.  The portions that aren't accepted would be the rest of the published Inspired Version.  The history around the LDS church and the Reorganized church is very interesting on this topic if you have read about it.  

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

There are certainly many ways to interpert what I said to be incorrect. Thank you for asking me to clarify as to what I mean: It doesn’t appear that Joseph ever finished his project, to use your observation, “to carefully read the Bible and use that as a catalyst for further revelation,” or whatever other purpose he or the Lord might have had in mind.

I would be interested in evidence that Joseph never finished his project.  If you mean that the results of this project were never published in Joseph's lifetime, then I agree with you, but if you mean that he considered his translation efforts of the bible incomplete, I would like to know if we have any evidence to support that from statements he made or other secondary evidence.  

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, before worrying yourself too much about that, what part of Clarke's do you think JS may possibly have used in translating the BoM? There are some Protestant-type issues in the BoM which were of somewhat general concern in JS' day - like baptizing children. The whole premise of the BoM was a common speculation - that the lost tribes or any of the peoples of the Bible were in the Americas. That can be easily demonstrated with several books and numerous articles written on the subject before the BoM was published. There really can be almost no end to possible speculations, so for the topic to be relevant, do you have some point(s) in mind from Clarke's that you feel appear in the BoM?

Honestly, almost any library of the day may have had Clarke's Commentary. Biblical commentaries were not extremely rare. All JS had to do is go to the local city library, and he could probably find a commentary. Further, any publisher of religious books would probably have one, so I think any point you are trying to make this way is going to end up being moot in the end - JS always had access to Bibles and biblical commentaries.

Do you realize you are asking the same question that I did?

I said....

"but if it could be shown that Clarke's was also used in parts of the Book of Mormon."

Notice the word "if".

 

However since my last post I found a reference to reddit from 2011 in which someone else has pointed out what they thought were parallels in the Book of Mormon to Clarke's commentary but I am not sure I am allowed to link to that forum here.

Here's the link and Mods feel free to delete it if it is deemed against forum rules.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/i4v35/did_joseph_smith_plagiarize_from_adame_clarkes/

Edited January 18, 2018 by CA Steve

[rongo]

I see people making the leap to "plagiarism" and "cribbing" with this (not surprisingly, along party lines. It's the same people who question and complain about other things about Joseph Smith/the restored Church).

I'll say what I originally posted in this thread:

At a minimum, the important JST section known as The Book of Moses certainly didn't come from Adam Clarke's commentary.

  

I don't see a problem with insights from Clarke priming the pump in other areas, but there are a multitude of uniquely Mormon parts in the JST (akin to Melchizedek and Salem, etc.) to where it's clear that he wasn't just cribbing things from contemporary scholarship.

People who are prone to seize on claimed evidence of Joseph Smith producing scripture in completely non-divine ways see any indication that Joseph Smith read and included some thought from Clarke as prima facia evidence that there was no revelation involved at all. Anyone who takes out their JST in the back of their Bible and simply reads through the long passages will see that the "Clarke contributions" pale in comparison to things like: Melchizedek and Salem, the entire Book of Moses, Moses and Zipporah, Enoch, etc.

For me, if things Clarke was correct on (as revealed through revelation) were included in the JST, then the fact that these things are included in the JST isn't an indication that he plagiarized from him. It is very clear to me just with a cursory preponderance of the scope and content of the JST that this isn't the case.

 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that the portions borrowed/re-purposed from other sources shouldn't be considered less important or somehow illegitimate.  I believe virtually everything in the human enterprise contains large elements of borrowed/re-purposed knowledge, this is how collective knowledge works as incremental changes are made and built upon existing ideas and concepts.  Finding a truly unique idea that isn't related in anyway to something else is nearly impossible to do.  

That is really a good point. Most of the Bible is "repurposed" knowledge built precept upon precept. After studying it my whole life, I see recurrent words, phrases, and themes throughout - God seems to be saying the same things again and again through different prophets. So He says the same thing again in the BoM and people get all bent out of shape, like JS must have copied it from his Bible. Just a quick example is the Lord gives new Revelation through John which uses very similar language to that in Daniel - beasts with horns, etc. Prophets or seers don't operate in a vacuum. They study their scriptures. Daniel was studying Jeremiah and prayed about it to understand. I bet he consulted the Talmud to see if anything had been written about it yet, or would if he had one. When I research a topic I look at numerous materials. Even though I may feel one source has correct information, I may disagree with their conclusions, etc. Indeed, I do that all the time. So Joseph did that, and gave us what he was given as being right after he prayed about it, and we are going to get all bent out of shape?

Quote

Joseph was immersed in biblical language in his environment.  I can see him deliberately copying parts of the KJV at times, but at other times there are situations where multiple short phrases (3-5 words long) from different parts of the bible are found in just one verse in the BoM.  I imagine that Joseph wasn't conscientiously copying those segments, but that this is an example of him being so immersed in biblical language that these phrases were coming to his mind more spontaneously, rather than him deliberate copying these segments from different books in the bible.  

Wondering if you've ever seen parts of this thesis by Colby Townsend, you may find it interesting when it comes to biblical language in the BoM.  

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/appropriation-and-adaptation-j-material-book-mormon

I personally don't think Joseph Smith cracked a Bible in translating the BoM. I think it is full of biblical language just because that is what the readers would know - the KJV. So that is the language the Lord spoke to them in - and some EME apparently. After all I thought the point of the BoM was to supplement and clarify the Bible - not to be some wholely new and unrelated scripture - that would scare me. So having "biblical language in the BoM" would scare me? Not at all. Indeed, it comforts me. There are far too many other texts in the world claiming to be scripture, which are not, and the lack of consistent scriptural themes and language are a huge clue... a large one is the Urantia Book.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you expound on this idea, are you saying the borrowed ideas you would value as less important than the ideas that you believe aren't borrowed? 

No. Not at all. I'm saying that the entire Book of Moses is completely "Adam Clarke-free." Enoch content, Moses background, expounded Adam and Eve material, Master Mahan, etc. You name it. 

I'm not sure you understood my question.  I'm wondering why you said that borrowed ideas, like the Adam Clarke elements, you would consider to be less important than other portions that you believe contain no borrowed content.  Why less important, what is it about borrowed/re-purposed elements that makes them less important in your mind, and why?  

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, that's where it gets interesting. For example, the Book of Moses records a man named Mahijah confronting and contending with Enoch. Extra-biblical sources demonstrably unavailable to Joseph Smith (and not in Adam Clarke) likewise record a man named Mahijah or Mehujah (vowels differ) contending with Enoch. So, since this isn't in Clarke's commentary, and Joseph Smith couldn't have had access to the sources (they weren't available in English until after his time), the presence of authentic Enoch content in an expansion of Genesis is a witness of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And without Clarke's help . . .  

In many cases these "demonstrably unavailable sources to Joseph Smith" end up being demonstrable and available as more information comes forward.  The evidence for things that Joseph Smith couldn't have possibly had access to continues to shrink as additional evidence comes forward. 

But, this kind of apologetic positioning isn't all that important to me anyway.  As I mentioned earlier all the confirming evidence that I've seen about how humans create and innovate shows that everything created, even the most masterful and amazing innovations that we have in the history of human kind are all built upon the foundations of information was available and present through the human endeavor.  We only see incremental improvements on existing information, this is how things work.  

And interestingly enough my expectation for how things work is also in harmony with Mormon teachings of line upon line learning, and the rejection of creation ex nihilo.  These are Mormon ideas that I find confirmed through rational evidence based observations.  The idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have come up with these ideas because they weren't in his environment, is the one that I find no logical evidence to support, and no Mormon doctrinal principle to support either.  

 

[cinepro]

The oddest thing about this is that most LDS probably assumed the changes Joseph Smith made were from revelation.  This is how the LDS Church introduces the Joseph Smith Translation:

Quote

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.

Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/introduction.html?lang=eng

"Oh, and he also copied a bunch of stuff from a popular Biblical commentary of his day..."

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I see people making the leap to "plagiarism" and "cribbing" with this (not surprisingly, along party lines. It's the same people who question and complain about other things about Joseph Smith/the restored Church).

I'll say what I originally posted in this thread:

 

 

I have no issue with "priming the pump" and see very little difference between that phrase and cribbing.  I am not sure why the need for a personal attack based on the difference between the two.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Do you realize you are asking the same question that I did?

I said....

"but if it could be shown that Clarke's was also used in parts of the Book of Mormon."

Notice the word "if".

 

However since my last post I found a reference to reddit from 2011 in which someone else has pointed out what they thought were parallels in the Book of Mormon to Clarke's commentary but I am not sure I am allowed to link to that forum here.

Here's the link and Mods feel free to delete it if it is deemed against forum rules.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/i4v35/did_joseph_smith_plagiarize_from_adame_clarkes/

Ahh... the tradition of borrowing is alive and well in Mormonism.  BYU professors borrowing from reddit to examine how Joseph Smith borrowed from Adam Clarke.  Its turtles all the way down folks.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is really a good point. Most of the Bible is "repurposed" knowledge built precept upon precept. After studying it my whole life, I see recurrent words, phrases, and themes throughout - God seems to be saying the same things again and again through different prophets. So He says the same thing again in the BoM and people get all bent out of shape, like JS must have copied it from his Bible. Just a quick example is the Lord gives new Revelation through John which uses very similar language to that in Daniel - beasts with horns, etc. Prophets or seers don't operate in a vacuum. They study their scriptures. Daniel was studying Jeremiah and prayed about it to understand. I bet he consulted the Talmud to see if anything had been written about it yet, or would if he had one. When I research a topic I look at numerous materials. Even though I may feel one source has correct information, I may disagree with their conclusions, etc. Indeed, I do that all the time. So Joseph did that, and gave us what he was given as being right after he prayed about it, and we are going to get all bent out of shape?

I agree with this and I think human nature also has a part to play in how people conceive of God.  There are examples of disparate cultures in history coming up with very similar ideas.  I don't personally believe its because of some supernatural force or deity connecting those people, although that's fine if believers think this, I'm somewhat agnostic on this concept.   I personally believe these similar ideas and outcomes come from a shared commonality in how our brains have evolved.  

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I personally don't think Joseph Smith cracked a Bible in translating the BoM. I think it is full of biblical language just because that is what the readers would know - the KJV. So that is the language the Lord spoke to them in - and some EME apparently. After all I thought the point of the BoM was to supplement and clarify the Bible - not to be some wholely new and unrelated scripture - that would scare me. So having "biblical language in the BoM" would scare me? Not at all. Indeed, it comforts me. There are far too many other texts in the world claiming to be scripture, which are not, and the lack of consistent scriptural themes and language are a huge clue... a large one is the Urantia Book.

I have a hard time believing that Joseph could have dictated the Isaiah chapters or the 3 Nephi chapters without copying from the Bible.  If he did his memory must have been amazing.  That thesis by Colby Townsend that I linked to earlier is really an interesting read.  I don't think most people know just how much biblical language exists in the BoM, it is all over the place.  I agree that Joseph looked at the BoM as clarifying and emphasizing the important doctrines of the Bible, yet he rarely used it or referred to it after its publication in 1830.   

I'm currently reading Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible, its an interesting read, and I believe he would agree on that point.  One stat from the book that I remember is that for every reference to the BoM, there were 19 references to the bible (19 to 1 ratio).  The bible really was the center of early church emphasis for Joseph and for Mormon's in general.  This didn't change until the late 20th century.  I highly recommend that book as a very interesting and very respectful for more orthodox Mormons.  

https://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Bible-Latter-day-American-Religion/dp/019973903X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The oddest thing about this is that most LDS probably assumed the changes Joseph Smith made were from revelation.  This is how the LDS Church introduces the Joseph Smith Translation:

"Oh, and he also copied a bunch of stuff from a popular Biblical commentary of his day..."

The problem is with how correlated Mormonism has taught the concept of revelation.  Its a very simplistic concept of top down direct communication from a deity to a human, sometimes even in very exacting language including spelling out words.  Unfortunately this very simplistic and erroneous view cannot abide more complicated descriptions of revelation.  

I personally don't see why revelation has to be defined this way.  Revelation must include borrowing and re-purposing and making mistakes and learning from mistakes and all of the complexities of life have to come along for the ride.  In today's world everything about that correlated teaching of revelation runs contrary to the evidence of how the world works that it just can't effectively work in modern society. 

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

I see people making the leap to "plagiarism" and "cribbing" with this (not surprisingly, along party lines. It's the same people who question and complain about other things about Joseph Smith/the restored Church).

It absolutely fits the definition of plagiarism, and I made this point earlier on a post.  I also mentioned that this kind of plagiarism was common during that time period.  Now, I don't think we should just dismiss the content because it was plagiarized. 

I'm really hoping you will answer my earlier question about why you believe the borrowed portions of the JST are less important as I think this will be a very interesting and important idea to discuss.  Thanks

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

However since my last post I found a reference to reddit from 2011 in which someone else has pointed out what they thought were parallels in the Book of Mormon to Clarke's commentary but I am not sure I am allowed to link to that forum here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/i4v35/did_joseph_smith_plagiarize_from_adame_clarkes/

So it appears that the connection with Clarke's commentary is not a new investigation at all. It has been bounced around for awhile now not only with regards to the JST but also the BoM. 

From that link some counterpoints listed:

Adam Clark's is for infant baptism and doesn't care about the method of baptizing: http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemar10.htm

No extensive information about the urim and thumim http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkelev8.htm

It is against polygamy:

Dispensations- http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke2sam5.htm

Permitted or revoked by the prophet- http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkedeu21.htm

Suggestion forbidden http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkelev18.htm

Polygamy only causes trouble (even for Abraham http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkegen16.htm

Indefinite "they" could imply polygamy http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkegen2.htm

Lamech guilty for introducing polygamy (Reversing the order of God)http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkegen4.htm

Another confirming polygamy, but denouncing it at the same time http://www.godrules.net/library/IndoEuropean/clarke/clarke1sam1.htm

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It absolutely fits the definition of plagiarism, and I made this point earlier on a post.  I also mentioned that this kind of plagiarism was common during that time period.  Now, I don't think we should just dismiss the content because it was plagiarized. 

I'm really hoping you will answer my earlier question about why you believe the borrowed portions of the JST are less important as I think this will be a very interesting and important idea to discuss.  Thanks

I'll need to read the paper that has been linked to. 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The church defines canon as the four standard works.  Your definition sounds more like a personal position you can take about what you believe is inspired, but the definition of the word canon as I'm familiar with it, is how an institution like the LDS church has defined its authoritative scripture, and in this case its the quad that you can buy at the distribution center, thats canon.  

I would argue that there is no scholarly evidence that can tell you whether any statement in scripture is the "Lord's mind to a prophet".  That kind of a question cannot and should not be examined from a scholarly perspective, but that kind of a question can only be in the category of personal subjective belief.  

This quote seems to me to be referring to the inspired version published in 1867 by the Reorganized CoJCoLDS.  Since portions of that Inspired Version are in our LDS canon, like the book of Moses and the section in Matthew (these are in the PoGP,  but are part of this JST or Inspired Version of the Bible) then I think those sections are considered canon.  And I would say that the footnotes in the LDS standard works Old and New Testament also qualify as canon because they have been published by the church and specifically integrated into the curriculum for correlated manuals.  My experiences on Sunday tell me that these portions of the JST are accepted by members as authoritative canon.  The portions that aren't accepted would be the rest of the published Inspired Version.  The history around the LDS church and the Reorganized church is very interesting on this topic if you have read about it.  

I would be interested in evidence that Joseph never finished his project.  If you mean that the results of this project were never published in Joseph's lifetime, then I agree with you, but if you mean that he considered his translation efforts of the bible incomplete, I would like to know if we have any evidence to support that from statements he made or other secondary evidence.  

Yes, I take the Inspired Version as a whole to not be canon, but of course I accept the Book of Moses and JS-Matthew as part of our canon. I don’t take the footnote references to JST to be canon any more than the alternate translations, words and explanation, but don’t fault anyone who might.

“It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

As far as the process, as @clarkgoble pointed out, “to carefully read the Bible and use that as a catalyst for further revelation,” I don’t think that was finished; it doesn't appear to be his M.O.

As far as deeming the project to be completed, it was complete enough for him to stop working on it as intensively as he had, though it was not in final, edited form. At the time he died, others outside the governing priesthood councils of the Church assumed responsibility for that. https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng

My interest is in the two key types of revelation that are represented by the five categories of changes that were brought up in the OP article.

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem is with how correlated Mormonism has taught the concept of revelation.  Its a very simplistic concept of top down direct communication from a deity to a human, sometimes even in very exacting language including spelling out words.  Unfortunately this very simplistic and erroneous view cannot abide more complicated descriptions of revelation.  

I personally don't see why revelation has to be defined this way.  Revelation must include borrowing and re-purposing and making mistakes and learning from mistakes and all of the complexities of life have to come along for the ride.  In today's world everything about that correlated teaching of revelation runs contrary to the evidence of how the world works that it just can't effectively work in modern society. 

The problem is that if the Church teaches that "revelation" includes borrowing and re-purposing and making mistakes and learning from mistakes, people will justifiably question why they should care about "revelation."

Seriously.  The next time a Stake President stood and said "we're dividing the Stake, and while these new boundaries may be difficult for some to adjust to, we prayed and this is being done by revelation",  you'd have a bunch of people thinking "Great, this must be one of those 'making mistakes' kinds of revelations."

Once the members start seeing revelation as something that is done the same way non-revelation stuff is, with the same "mistaken" output, they'll start to question why it is needed at all.  And does a Church that is built on a foundation of getting people to believe its claims because of "revelation" really want those people believing that they might have made a mistake?

Edited January 18, 2018 by cinepro

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I take the Inspired Version as a whole to not be canon, but of course I accept the Book of Moses and JS-Matthew as part of our canon. I don’t take the footnote references to JST to be canon any more than the alternate translations, words and explanation, but don’t fault anyone who might.

I guess I always have assumed the footnotes to the JST are considered canon.  What about the footnotes that reference the back of the bible for the longer passages, some footnotes have the JST quote in the footnote at the bottom, but some are end note references, do you view those differently than the footnotes?  Also, what do you think of the integration with correlated Mormon Sunday school and other manuals.  I believe that they are treated as canon based on how those manuals are written.  

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

Thats an interesting quote, but his logic doesn't make sense to me.  He's saying that because not every possible passage that could have been changed was changed, that this is evidence that the translation wasn't finished?  But this could instead be evidence that Joseph considered those passages to be correct as written and not in need of changing.  I wonder if Robert Matthews has other evidence that he just didn't explain to support this statement.  

Also, I'd be interested in any statements from Joseph Smith or contemporaries that indicates that he viewed his project on the Bible as incomplete.  Also, if we eliminated all the revelations that weren't published in Joseph's lifetime, we'd have a lot of the D&C and PoGP that would be eliminated.  

 

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that if the Church teaches that "revelation" includes borrowing and re-purposing and making mistakes and learning from mistakes, people will justifiably question why they should care about "revelation."

Seriously.  The next time a Stake President stood and said "we're dividing the Stake, and while these new boundaries may be difficult for some to adjust to, we prayed and this is being done by revelation",  you'd have a bunch of people thinking "Great, this must be one of those 'making mistakes' kinds of revelations."

Once the members start seeing revelation as something that is done the same way non-revelation stuff is, with the same "mistaken" output, they'll start to question why it is needed at all.  And does a Church that is built on a foundation of getting people to believe its claims because of "revelation" really want those people believing that they might have made a mistake?

I don't think the church does. However, there is always the "wrong roads" reasoning from E. Holland's talk. In it, a wrong revelation was used to show the eventual right path. So, the answer or nonanswer is in the mystery of God. He sometimes leads us down the wrong path so we can see the right one. Nevermind that he just described trial and error that we all experience day to day. Just claim God was a part of it and wrong revelation becomes right, just like that.