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

[hope_for_things]

14 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?

Honestly, I think revelation should be whatever the church as a body agrees should be valued as inspired, and this process should include an element of common consent.  So the ideas that we find are principles that inspire and align with core gospel principles are what we should consider revelation.  This process would be independent of how those ideas originated.  

I agree with you about the Stake division example.  People expect that leaders study and do their homework as part of the process, not just pray and call it revelation.  But isn't that a Mormon teaching anyhow, study it out first, do your due diligence, isn't this how we're taught to make decisions?  

Lastly once people completely shed their supernatural beliefs, then they can realize that old ways of believing how the universe works, including superstition and magic, contradict our modern knowledge.  We need to own up to the present, and reformulate religious thinking to not conflict with actual empirical evidence.  I think this can be done without completely throwing out religion, but it requires a redefinition of many things including revelation, prophets and scripture, and a discarding of supernatural thinking.  

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Do you mean the footnotes in the 1981 triple combination and  1979 Bible edition? I don't think so although it gets at ambiguity over what we mean by canon. In any case there's pretty compelling reasons to be distrustful of the footnotes and chapter headers. I believe McConkie (who did a lot of the work along with a program running on an early computer I believe) voiced some warnings. I can't find that quote at the moment though. As an interesting aside, Pres. Monson was in charge of the project which started in 1973.

So far as I know only the Pearl of Great Price parts are canon although I do wish some of the longer other passages would get added to the Pearl of Great Price. Say the Melchezedek passage or a few others.

My personal feeling is that the footnotes (broadly speaking not pointing to the JST) are horrible although perhaps understandable given the technology of the time. I really hope they're working on a replacement.

 

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wonder if Robert Matthews has other evidence that he just didn't explain to support this statement.  

It's worth noting Joseph Smith's journal entry for 2 July 1833 is: "We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father."    

I believe Matthew's point was that from 1833 - 1844 Joseph continued to revise texts, such as his famous treatment of Genesis 1:1 in the King Follet Discourse. So in that sense it wasn't complete in that he wasn't finished revising the text. However in the sense of the project commanded by revelation he was finished. So it's one of those phrases again where one has to be careful to unpack the meaning and not equivocate in the terms.

It's also worth noting that Matthews pretty well claims the same thing some are seeing as novel with this Clarke commentary. Quoting from his book on the JST.

 

Quote

In the face of the evidence it can hardly be maintained that the exact words were given to the Prophet in the process of a revelatory experience. Exact words may have been given to the mind of the Prophet on occasion, but the manuscript evidence suggests that generally he was obliged to formulate the words himself to convey the message he desired. Consequently, he might later have observed that sometimes the words were not entirely satisfactory in the initial writings. They may have conveyed too much or too little. Or they may have been too specific or too vague, or even ambiguous. Or the words may have implied meanings not intended. Thus through (1) an error of recording, (2) an increase of knowledge, or (3) an inadequate selection of words, any passage of the New Translation might be subject to later revision. (Matthews, A Plainer Translation, 86)

He's here speaking of revisions to the JST manuscripts, not the later revisions from 1833 - 1844 although there are indications he made some modifications to the manuscripts after 1833. You can look at the manuscripts at the Joseph Smith Papers for anyone curious.

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

Yeah, I think Holland just messed up by conflating regular old trial and error, and calling it revelation.  But, revelation can be post hoc reasoning in my opinion and it often is.  Think about the priesthood ban, it was only after all the bad consequences of the priesthood ban that Mormons were able to look back in hindsight and have the courage to accept the revelation to change it.  Many revelations come after reflection and experiencing the consequences of poor choices. 

Revelation is not a finite, captured in one moment in time and place, communication from God to human.  Revelation is a realization and a process of how someone or some group of people discover what is moral and good and divine.  And as our esteemed late President Uchtdorf (late in the sense he's no longer in the presidency) once said, and I paraphrase, the restoration (revelation) is ongoing.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you mean the footnotes in the 1981 triple combination and  1979 Bible edition? I don't think so although it gets at ambiguity over what we mean by canon. In any case there's pretty compelling reasons to be distrustful of the footnotes and chapter headers. I believe McConkie (who did a lot of the work along with a program running on an early computer I believe) voiced some warnings. I can't find that quote at the moment though. As an interesting aside, Pres. Monson was in charge of the project which started in 1973.

So far as I know only the Pearl of Great Price parts are canon although I do wish some of the longer other passages would get added to the Pearl of Great Price. Say the Melchezedek passage or a few others.

My personal feeling is that the footnotes (broadly speaking not pointing to the JST) are horrible although perhaps understandable given the technology of the time. I really hope they're working on a replacement.

I see them as canon for the reasons I mentioned earlier, they are integrated in the curriculum.  I would be surprised if McConkie voiced warnings, because wasn't he involved in that publication, including being the author of the chapter headings in those editions?  Either way, even if he did voice warning, that wouldn't discount them as canon. 

Oh, and I agree that the footnotes are poor, I have many problems with the KJV and the way we use the bible in general, but that still wouldn't disqualify these things as canon.  

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's worth noting Joseph Smith's journal entry for 2 July 1833 is: "We are exceedingly fatigued, owing to a great press of business. We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father."    

I believe Matthew's point was that from 1833 - 1844 Joseph continued to revise texts, such as his famous treatment of Genesis 1:1 in the King Follet Discourse. So in that sense it wasn't complete in that he wasn't finished revising the text. However in the sense of the project commanded by revelation he was finished. So it's one of those phrases again where one has to be careful to unpack the meaning and not equivocate in the terms.

It's also worth noting that Matthews pretty well claims the same thing some are seeing as novel with this Clarke commentary. Quoting from his book on the JST.

Excellent, thanks for sharing that quote, I thought I remembered something along those lines, but I couldn't find it on a quick search.  As to Joseph continuing to revise texts in his sermons, this is the case throughout his enterprise.  Changes to the D&C and to his theology in general were regular occurrences, his ideas were in a constant state of revision and recapitulation.  There are examples of a particular verse quoted in the BoM, and the D&C and the JST, where all three version have different language.  This isn't evidence that the JST was incomplete in my mind, otherwise you could say that the D&C and BoM were incomplete as well.  

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He's here speaking of revisions to the JST manuscripts, not the later revisions from 1833 - 1844 although there are indications he made some modifications to the manuscripts after 1833. You can look at the manuscripts at the Joseph Smith Papers for anyone curious.

Thanks for sharing this quote.  I think a close reading of Joseph's many revelations and scripture produced during his life shows that he was very comfortable with changing the wording and even the meaning of the original wording of scripture throughout his lifetime.  Oh how I wish that this fact would have remained prominent in Mormon tradition.  Unfortunately our tradition has become more like the scriptural literalists, with belief that recorded words represent the unchanging sacrosanct mind of God.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

There's a few papers reportedly coming out that question Barlow on this point. There's not out yet so I can't speak to the strength of their arguments. But I think many think Barlow and people around that time may have exaggerated things somewhat.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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?

Interestingly this is exactly the same argument fundamentalists use against science. If science isn't absolute knowledge with no mistakes why should we trust it?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately our tradition has become more like the scriptural literalists, with belief that recorded words represent the unchanging sacrosanct mind of God.  

I confess I don't see that as our tradition, although heaven knows there are "literalists" among us - although it seems far fewer than when I was young. Probably due to the approach of McConkie losing appeal as fewer and fewer have read his books. (That's not a knock on McConkie who I think was regularly deeply insightful - just that there were many people in the 80's and 90's who tended to follow a gospel of McConkie with Mormon Doctrine and a few other works as their scripture)

As you point out, I think the evidence is very compelling that Joseph saw scripture as tools with tools liable to be reworked to new settings. However the history of the shift from the Book of Commandments to the D&C is discussed so widely in Church books I tend to think of the that as our tradition. I'd add that Brigham Young pretty well says the same thing. Even during the supposed heyday of "fundamentalism" (say from the backlash to secular views of scripture in the 1930's up through the end of the McConkie era with the rise of the FARMS era) there was constant acknowledgement of seeing through a glass darkly. It's just that there was a rejection of automatic dismissal of scriptures not confirmed by science. That is the assumption that scripture was wrong until proven right was dismissed. Now I certainly favor the more sophisticated hermeneutics we see rising the 1980's and (I'd argue) ultimately triumphing in the 1990's. Just that I think things are complicated.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

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.  

 

As part of the “Study Helps,” I see all footnotes (those pertaining to JST included) as intended to provide valuable, ancillary information for reading the standard works, regardless of length or location. I also view the correlated materials as ancillary to the standard works and not canon, and their use of information from the “quad” footnotes and any other sources is also intended to provide valuable study information.

As I first noted with the JST excerpts and footnotes, I suppose that if one desires, he may treat the manuals as canon, but I don’t regard them as such. In these two lds.org sources, “Canon” is defined as “A word …used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon & https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/canon . So, the qualification of “sacred book” in my mind excludes the manuals and the various Study Helps (Guide to the Scriptures, Bible Dictionary, Topical Guide, Index, Joseph Smith Translation, Bible Maps, Bible Photographs, Church History Chronology, Church History Maps, Church History Photographs, Abbreviations and Designations, Explanation Concerning Footnotes), General Conference talks and any published correlated material, for that matter.

This does not mean I do not consider a good deal of what is taught in or by these non-canonical sources (“best books”) as sacred; nor that they do not represent the same kinds of revelation Joseph Smith used in translating the Bible. I believe there are sacred teachings contained within, and revelatory processes reflected in the preparation of, such Church materials.

D&C 68:4 provides one good applied definition for scripture which I think includes but certainly goes beyond the scope of canon, speaking to what Joseph Smith did with the Bible and which is still kept separate from the canon.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's a few papers reportedly coming out that question Barlow on this point. There's not out yet so I can't speak to the strength of their arguments. But I think many think Barlow and people around that time may have exaggerated things somewhat.

 

I look forward to learning more about the early church dynamics, sounds interesting.  I doubt it will refute the evidence that the Bible was prominent during this time period, but perhaps it will complicate the picture a little and provide some interesting insights.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see that as our tradition, although heaven knows there are "literalists" among us - although it seems far fewer than when I was young. Probably due to the approach of McConkie losing appeal as fewer and fewer have read his books. (That's not a knock on McConkie who I think was regularly deeply insightful - just that there were many people in the 80's and 90's who tended to follow a gospel of McConkie with Mormon Doctrine and a few other works as their scripture)

As you point out, I think the evidence is very compelling that Joseph saw scripture as tools with tools liable to be reworked to new settings. However the history of the shift from the Book of Commandments to the D&C is discussed so widely in Church books I tend to think of the that as our tradition. I'd add that Brigham Young pretty well says the same thing. Even during the supposed heyday of "fundamentalism" (say from the backlash to secular views of scripture in the 1930's up through the end of the McConkie era with the rise of the FARMS era) there was constant acknowledgement of seeing through a glass darkly. It's just that there was a rejection of automatic dismissal of scriptures not confirmed by science. That is the assumption that scripture was wrong until proven right was dismissed. Now I certainly favor the more sophisticated hermeneutics we see rising the 1980's and (I'd argue) ultimately triumphing in the 1990's. Just that I think things are complicated.

Everything you say here is true except I disagree with the influence these things have had on mainstream orthodox Mormonism.  Until I hear these kinds of nuanced perspectives discussed in general conference and integrated into the correlated curriculum, I just don’t think it’s mainstream.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

Eta: forgot the link!  http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

A good article by Wilson and Wayment, so thanks to Stern and you.  It confirms what several of us have been saying for years about the JST, which is not canonical in any case, and that it was the product of both Rigdon & Smith (Rigdon was the primary author of Lectures on Faith).  It also reflects the common activity in that period to revise Holy Writ.  Thomas Jefferson is the best known example of that, and most are aware that Rigdon's former mentor, Alexander Campbell, had likewise prepared a biblical revision.

The RLDS actually published the JST as their Holy Scriptures, but that was a mistake (IMHO).

I doubt that the JST has or will expand notions of what constitutes revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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..."

Your point is well taken, cinepro.  However, just declaring  something "revelation" in an introduction written by one guy (guess who) does not make it revelation (whatever one imagines that is).  Moreover, we have no poll of LDS members as to what they think about the JST, which was not even on their radar 40 years ago.  I wonder what "most LDS" actually do think of the JST.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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?

Correct.  The problem with such loose definitions (or non-definitions) of "revelation" is that if everything is revelation then nothing is revelation -- which is a foundation of sand.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your point is well taken, cinepro.  However, just declaring  something "revelation" in an introduction written by one guy (guess who) does not make it revelation (whatever one imagines that is).  Moreover, we have no poll of LDS members as to what they think about the JST, which was not even on their radar 40 years ago.  I wonder what "most LDS" actually do think of the JST.

A few weeks ago in Gospel Doctrine, we started reading from The Book of Moses and before we started I asked "So does anyone know where 'The Book of Moses' comes from?" A few people guessed "The scrolls and the mummies", but other than that no one knew.

So based on that very small sample of a class in a suburban ward in Southern California, I would estimate that knowledge of where, exactly, the JST is supposed to have come is pretty dang low among Church members in general.

[canard78]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

I've not been on this board for ages but returned as I'd heard about this news and was interested in getting some reasoned discussion about it and the implications.

The assumption that, for those who question, it's all about finding reason to not go or not pay tithes is never helpful (however much you might have intended it to be in jest). It undermines the actual conversation that's supposed to be happening.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

As part of the “Study Helps,” I see all footnotes (those pertaining to JST included) as intended to provide valuable, ancillary information for reading the standard works, regardless of length or location. I also view the correlated materials as ancillary to the standard works and not canon, and their use of information from the “quad” footnotes and any other sources is also intended to provide valuable study information.

As I first noted with the JST excerpts and footnotes, I suppose that if one desires, he may treat the manuals as canon, but I don’t regard them as such. In these two lds.org sources, “Canon” is defined as “A word …used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/canon & https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/canon . So, the qualification of “sacred book” in my mind excludes the manuals and the various Study Helps (Guide to the Scriptures, Bible Dictionary, Topical Guide, Index, Joseph Smith Translation, Bible Maps, Bible Photographs, Church History Chronology, Church History Maps, Church History Photographs, Abbreviations and Designations, Explanation Concerning Footnotes), General Conference talks and any published correlated material, for that matter.

This does not mean I do not consider a good deal of what is taught in or by these non-canonical sources (“best books”) as sacred; nor that they do not represent the same kinds of revelation Joseph Smith used in translating the Bible. I believe there are sacred teachings contained within, and revelatory processes reflected in the preparation of, such Church materials.

D&C 68:4 provides one good applied definition for scripture which I think includes but certainly goes beyond the scope of canon, speaking to what Joseph Smith did with the Bible and which is still kept separate from the canon.

I find the history around the JST and the LDS church's relationship with the RLDS church quite interesting on this subject.  It seems to me that the bad blood between the two institutions is more to blame for the LDS church's reluctance to canonize the JST, more than any other reasons.  We've canonized many other things after Joseph died, things that he spent much less time and effort producing than the JST.  We've even decanonized things that were canonized in Joseph's life and under his direction, like the Lectures on Faith.  Canon is a powerful distinction because it is what the institution designates as the official authoritative works for the church, but recognizing that this is just an arbitrary and changing definition over time is important.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A good article by Wilson and Wayment, so thanks to Stern and you.  It confirms what several of us have been saying for years about the JST, which is not canonical in any case, and that it was the product of both Rigdon & Smith (Rigdon was the primary author of Lectures on Faith).  It also reflects the common activity in that period to revise Holy Writ.  Thomas Jefferson is the best known example of that, and most are aware that Rigdon's former mentor, Alexander Campbell, had likewise prepared a biblical revision.

The RLDS actually published the JST as their Holy Scriptures, but that was a mistake (IMHO).

I doubt that the JST has or will expand notions of what constitutes revelation.

Mentioned earlier, but worth repeating I think.  The books of Moses and JS Matthew in the POGP are canon for LDS folks, and these are part of his inspired bible translation.  I'm also persuaded, although some on this thread disagrees with me, that the portions of the JST integrated into the LDS published Bible as footnotes and endnotes, are also considered canon by the members.  

As for Ridgon being involved, I'm not sure why that point is important.  Joseph didn't produce any scriptures on his own, he always had scribes and helpers that were involved in the process, some more than others, but you seem to imply that Rigdon's participation might somehow lesson the legitimacy of the JST in your perspective, could you clarify those comments?

Also can you clarify why you think the RLDS made a mistake by publishing the JST? 

Lastly, I think studying the production of that JST is a great opportunity to review evidence for how Joseph Smith produced scripture.  I think it brings important insights that when compared with evidence from his production of the BoM and BoA, we can get a better picture for the mechanics of how these texts were created. 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  The problem with such loose definitions (or non-definitions) of "revelation" is that if everything is revelation then nothing is revelation -- which is a foundation of sand.

Interesting comments on the past couple posts Robert, and I'm now thoroughly confused about your position.  You recommended polling the members to determine what they think of the JST, yet you also criticized the fact that an introduction "written by one guy" does not seemingly reflect your perspective.  Lastly you bring up that Rigdon, a second person working with one guy (Joseph) somehow may have tainted your impressions of the value of the JST.  I'm looking for some coherence here and not finding any.  

Can you clarify how you would suggest that revelation be defined, is it by poll, is it by one guy, is it by multiple guys, what is your preferred method for designating legitimate canon for the church?  

[hope_for_things]

On social media last night I was reading through a thread discussing this JST article and someone linked to a blog post from a few years back.  It talks about a situation during the JST project where due to an oversight of some kind when Joseph switched scribes from Sidney Rigdon to John Whitmer, that Matthew 26 was actually translated twice.  It shows a comparison of both the original KJV and the two versions of Matthew 26 recorded by Rigdon and Whitmer.  I found it a really interesting read in case anyone else is interested.  

The web site is a little snarky in tone, just an FYI.  

https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/twice-translated-scripture/

Edited January 19, 2018 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

20 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?  

Aren't we seeing the beginnings of forming an apologetic on this based on the initial reactions of the some of the posters here?  I think we are.  I think queues will continue to be taken by what the researchers have said already--that the whole of the JST didn't come from the Bible commentary, only certain elements seem to have been stolen from Clarke's work.  And, I think the initial reaction to downplay Joseph Smith's translation efforts altogether--it wasn't all that important, never was considered scripture by him, never canonized or shouldn't have been.  

I'm surprised a bit by that.  The JST is far more used as scripture, in an LDS context than say, the BOA, at least in my experience.  I've been in many LDS taught classes wherein if they JST suggestion for a certain passage isn't read or considered people get pretty upset.  To many LDS the JST is far more inspired than the very weak unreliable Bible, it seems to me.  

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2018 at 7:52 AM, Gray said:

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

 

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

 

Eta: forgot the link!  http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

The latter.

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, I think revelation should be whatever the church as a body agrees should be valued as inspired, and this process should include an element of common consent.  So the ideas that we find are principles that inspire and align with core gospel principles are what we should consider revelation.  This process would be independent of how those ideas originated.  

I agree with you about the Stake division example.  People expect that leaders study and do their homework as part of the process, not just pray and call it revelation.  But isn't that a Mormon teaching anyhow, study it out first, do your due diligence, isn't this how we're taught to make decisions?  

Lastly once people completely shed their supernatural beliefs, then they can realize that old ways of believing how the universe works, including superstition and magic, contradict our modern knowledge.  We need to own up to the present, and reformulate religious thinking to not conflict with actual empirical evidence.  I think this can be done without completely throwing out religion, but it requires a redefinition of many things including revelation, prophets and scripture, and a discarding of supernatural thinking.  

Or just listening to Bukowski.

"Study it out in your mind and if you feel it is right" it is inspiration.

Totally scriptural.

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

17 hours 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?

Ok.  Radio Free Mormon did a podcast on this recently.  Should be considered, I think.  http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/01/radio-free-mormon-23-dumbing-revelation/

He's trying to show that in recent years, perhaps moreso in the past, the claims of revelation are merely claims of doing things the same way non-revelation stuff is done, based on what current leaders have been saying.  I think he does a fairly good job and will be trying to look deeper into it.  

[mfbukowski]

Time to grow up, kiddies. It has to happen some day!

 

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

On social media last night I was reading through a thread discussing this JST article and someone linked to a blog post from a few years back.  It talks about a situation during the JST project where due to an oversight of some kind when Joseph switched scribes from Sidney Rigdon to John Whitmer, that Matthew 26 was actually translated twice.  It shows a comparison of both the original KJV and the two versions of Matthew 26 recorded by Rigdon and Whitmer.  I found it a really interesting read in case anyone else is interested.  

The web site is a little snarky in tone, just an FYI.  

https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/twice-translated-scripture/

Wow.  Very fascinating.