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

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I would be interested in seeing a poll result on LDS members opinions about the JST.  For your statement that the Book of Moses and JS-Matthew were independent productions, do you have any material to support that assertion?  I thought they were just part JST bible project, but I'm open to seeing the evidence otherwise.  

As I already pointed out to you,  nearly everything in the JST consists of marginal notes inserted by Joseph & Sidney into an 1828 Phinney Bible.  They are primarily intended as clarifications of text.  That is why the RLDS call it the Inspired Revision.  The Book of Moses and the JS-Matthew sections are not marginal notes.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is getting more confusing unfortunately.  Is it Rigdon's prior background as a minister that causes you to discount the JST?  According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Rigdon was called specifically as a scribe to assist Joseph in the production of the JST.  

Does his help with the Lectures on Faith (all of which were canonized and approved by Joseph Smith) bother you somehow?  Do you consider the scriptures produced while Rigdon was involved not to be revelatory, or do you just value it less than scriptures produced with others assisting. 

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not canonical Scripture,  Sidney Rigdon was a formally trained, experienced Protestant minister.  His level of sophistication was unique in the LDS Church.  No one else had his knowledge, which is why he wrote the Lectures on Faith, which were later removed from the Canon.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What's so different about the JST production that wasn't also human about the BoA or BoM productions?  What makes the JS - Matthew and Moses elements revelatory?  You earlier called me out for conflating canon and revelation, and now it looks like you're confusing the terms.  They are canon, but what makes them revelation in your opinion?  And what excludes other portions of the JST as revelation in your mind?  You seem to be taking subjective opinions and treating them as objective facts.  I think we can agree on how canon is defined by the church.  I'm having a harder time understanding your seeming disdain for Rigdon's involvement as well as your seeming blanket acceptance that whatever the LDS institution has canonized is automatically revelatory, and whatever they've selectively not canonized is not revelation.  

If you want to study Joseph Smith and his production of scripture, studying all of his efforts in this vein seems to be important. He didn't transform into a different person when he produced a section in the D&C, vs. BoA, vs. JST.  Its all related, which is a point made in the paper linked in the OP.  

You have a strong tendency to see everything as part of one singular mishmash instead of carefully distinguishing the various categories.  That lack of care confuses you.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

.....................................

JSJr's mis en scene was a place and time where cutting edge Protestant disagreements and scholarship were being broadcast and bandied about by barely educated travelling padres.  Their language, vocabulary and arguments necessarily make it into JSJr's work, whether that work be translation, revelatory, or oratory.  The stuff was in the air and water. 

.............................

Dan Vogel often argues along such lines.  The advantage of such loose argument is that it cannot be refuted.  The information environment is just there.  No research in the library at Harvard College is necessary.  Everything necessary is simply in the air.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, why wouldn't time and effort be factors in determining what is worthy of canonization?  Maybe the fact that we have canonized scripture talking about the commandment to Joseph to translate the bible, should also be considered.  If not, what factors would you use?    We have many revelations that Joseph made that were never canonized.  We also have revelations that are canonized that were never intended for canonization by Joseph.  

When they canonized multiple D&C sections in the late 1800s, what criteria did they use to canonize these sections and who determined what would be included and what would be left out?  I know Orson Pratt was heavily involved in that project, but I don't know specifics about criteria used.  

Knowing the merit found in the preponderance of outputs resulting from my, an "every-man's", time and effort, it seems intuitively obvious.  But if you have an example where they were used, I'm all ears, and that would save us both a lot of time and effort!

I think the process is simple (Church President proposes canonization; Church membership sustains it by common consent). When D&C Sections 137 and 138 and OD-2 were canonized, I don’t recall any mention of any criteria, yet I don’t get the sense (faith in one aspect, hindsight in another) that they were arbitrarily selected. I think it significant that all three came in time for the rising generation(s) to inculcate the binding faith and doctrine in time to most effectively leverage the increased number of temples and expansion of genealogical technology.

So by such observation, i can say that perhaps one criterion is that the work yields a spiritually-validated assessment by the presiding key-holders of what the Lord sees fit that the members at large need to learn and commit to at a particular time and circumstance (rather, a generation or two before a particular time). I get this same theme from the compilation of the Bible (it is what inspired Joseph Smith); the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (it is for our day); the various sections of the D&C and the Pearl of Great price in establishing the doctrines, covenants and ordinances the formative years of the Restoration.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

non sequitur.

invincible ignorance.

Evidence that Joseph's scriptural innovations were in many cases collaborative efforts = non sequitur?  

Pointing out that your opinions are on an equal footing with my opinions = invincible ignorance?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I already pointed out to you,  nearly everything in the JST consists of marginal notes inserted by Joseph & Sidney into an 1828 Phinney Bible.  They are primarily intended as clarifications of text.  That is why the RLDS call it the Inspired Revision.  The Book of Moses and the JS-Matthew sections are not marginal notes.

So what?  Large portions of the BoM, and the book of Moses, and BoA, and the D&C are all highly dependent on the same 1828 Phinney Bible.  Does this make those portions of Joseph's other scriptural creations somehow less valid?  I don't understand your reasoning.  Do you have the discernment to distinguish which creations of Joseph Smith are of worth and which ones we should discount?  This is honestly mind boggling to me, the implications of what you're saying.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not canonical Scripture,  Sidney Rigdon was a formally trained, experienced Protestant minister.  His level of sophistication was unique in the LDS Church.  No one else had his knowledge, which is why he wrote the Lectures on Faith, which were later removed from the Canon.

I never said the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was canon, its published by the church so it has some authoritative clout.  You're throwing out a lot of facts about Rigdon that are obvious and at the same time you're avoiding my question. 

Why are you discounting Rigdon's influence on Mormonism?  Do you have an axe to grind against Rigdon, some kind of prejudice that makes it so you consider things he was involved with somehow less legitimate?  I don't understand.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have a strong tendency to see everything as part of one singular mishmash instead of carefully distinguishing the various categories.  That lack of care confuses you.

If you could just answer my questions about Rigdon, and also about how you determine what is revelation it would help me understand your perspective.  Obviously we have a difference of opinion, I just want to understand yours better.  I've tried to explain mine too, and hopefully I've make some headway.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Knowing the merit found in the preponderance of outputs resulting from my, an "every-man's", time and effort, it seems intuitively obvious.  But if you have an example where they were used, I'm all ears, and that would save us both a lot of time and effort!

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for here.  I don't have data readily available that would allow me to accurately compare the amount of time spent on different revelations.  I think its clear when someone came to Joseph for an answer to a question, that he often gave them an answer on the spot and we have canonized many of those answers in the D&C.  I also think its clear that his work on the JST which took a couple years, involved much more time and effort.  But doing a side by side data comparison, I don't have the information available to do that.  

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think the process is simple (Church President proposes canonization; Church membership sustains it by common consent). When D&C Sections 137 and 138 and OD-2 were canonized, I don’t recall any mention of any criteria, yet I don’t get the sense (faith in one aspect, hindsight in another) that they were arbitrarily selected. I think it significant that all three came in time for the rising generation(s) to inculcate the binding faith and doctrine in time to most effectively leverage the increased number of temples and expansion of genealogical technology.

So by such observation, i can say that perhaps one criterion is that the work yields a spiritually-validated assessment by the presiding key-holders of what the Lord sees fit that the members at large need to learn and commit to at a particular time and circumstance (rather, a generation or two before a particular time). I get this same theme from the compilation of the Bible (it is what inspired Joseph Smith); the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (it is for our day); the various sections of the D&C and the Pearl of Great price in establishing the doctrines, covenants and ordinances the formative years of the Restoration.

For how the process has worked, I think each time that the canon has changed and there haven't been very many times, the criteria has been different and has been highly influenced by the personalities involved.  This simple process I imagine was much more complex in the example I gave where it was in the late 1800s and Orson Pratt introduced multiple new sections for canonization, yet there were many revelations they had access to that weren't canonized at this time.  I'm not aware of a detailed study of this event, and I'd be interested if anyone knows of essays or books that have researched the history of this, as I think it would be very interesting. 

What is interesting to me is that you just assume that whatever happened must have been simple or that it must have been correct (presided over by key-holders).  Yet we have countless examples of mistakes from the past in our history.  Why make assumptions without any consideration that they could have been mistakes?  You seem unwilling to objectively consider that just because something has been canonized in the past, that we should accept it as correct and the best thing for the church. 

Curious, but did you know that James Talmage was pushing for a change to the D&C that would have eliminated the majority of the sections, and shorted the D&C into a best of compilation of sorts.  Yet, if I make the assertion that some of the canon might be worthy of decanonization today, it seems like I get all kinds of push back from the orthodox.  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for here.  I don't have data readily available that would allow me to accurately compare the amount of time spent on different revelations.  I think its clear when someone came to Joseph for an answer to a question, that he often gave them an answer on the spot and we have canonized many of those answers in the D&C.  I also think its clear that his work on the JST which took a couple years, involved much more time and effort.  But doing a side by side data comparison, I don't have the information available to do that.  

For how the process has worked, I think each time that the canon has changed and there haven't been very many times, the criteria has been different and has been highly influenced by the personalities involved.  This simple process I imagine was much more complex in the example I gave where it was in the late 1800s and Orson Pratt introduced multiple new sections for canonization, yet there were many revelations they had access to that weren't canonized at this time.  I'm not aware of a detailed study of this event, and I'd be interested if anyone knows of essays or books that have researched the history of this, as I think it would be very interesting. 

What is interesting to me is that you just assume that whatever happened must have been simple or that it must have been correct (presided over by key-holders).  Yet we have countless examples of mistakes from the past in our history.  Why make assumptions without any consideration that they could have been mistakes?  You seem unwilling to objectively consider that just because something has been canonized in the past, that we should accept it as correct and the best thing for the church. 

Curious, but did you know that James Talmage was pushing for a change to the D&C that would have eliminated the majority of the sections, and shorted the D&C into a best of compilation of sorts.  Yet, if I make the assertion that some of the canon might be worthy of decanonization today, it seems like I get all kinds of push back from the orthodox.  

I'm asking you to justify time and effort serving as criteria for canonizing something. I suggested why they aren't. I also suggested, from past examples, what seems to make it into the canon (or gets removed for that matter).

I'm not assuming that whatever happened was simple, but explaining that the process is simple, and that it is correct per LDS standards and practices. Are you saying that it is not correct for the leaders to propose, and the saints to consent to, new items in the canon? Is having a fallible Bible and Book of Mormon (its authors confessing they can err according to the weakness of the flesh) in the canon, on the whole, a mistake? Something, whether a text or the servants of God, can be fallible and yet correct where it counts, can it not? 

Why does it matter what James E. Talmage was pushing for? Are you saying he didn't put in enough time and effort to be successful? Well, that should tell you something  ! But after all is said and done, he sustained a canon as a result of the simple process no matter who put what amount of time and effort into it. Where have you and I been discussing decanonization, anyway; and why would you equate your academic assertions with him carrying out his role in the Church councils?

 

[blueglass]

Just found this post and looked at the byu undergrad short paper.  

"The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss."

"In doing the research for this paper, we also encountered numerous theological parallels to Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary (1802)."

Didn't realize the "ships of tarshish" isaiah evidence for ancient source had been debunked in a Dialogue paper.  Just a few years ago our mission president used this extra isaiah passage  as a clear evidence for the book of mormon as an authentic ancient book - while at stake conference. 

Is it correct that JS incorporated these Clarke and Buck ideas as his own?  - Without any attribution to the sources used?  Joseph called this an inspired translation - i.e. that by using the seer stone he saw in his mind's eye the original holographs and fixed the errors.   This is highly disturbing.   This paper gives me the same feeling I had when I saw Chris Johnson video - his research on the book of mormon sources.  When I saw all the hebraisms in late war which in the past were used as evidence for the book of mormon - it was disruptive to my faith.  Anyone else here having trouble processing this?  

[cinepro]

At least now the idea of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon using existing materials from the 1800s isn't so farfetched (or, apparently, bothersome to apologists).

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So what?  Large portions of the BoM, and the book of Moses, and BoA, and the D&C are all highly dependent on the same 1828 Phinney Bible.  Does this make those portions of Joseph's other scriptural creations somehow less valid?  I don't understand your reasoning.  Do you have the discernment to distinguish which creations of Joseph Smith are of worth and which ones we should discount?  This is honestly mind boggling to me, the implications of what you're saying.  

The plain fact is that, for whatever reason, the Brethren have not seen fit to dignify the JST as canon.  That may boggle your mind, but it might be wise for you to accept it.  As to your sweeping claim about the broader influence of the 1828 Phinney Bible, perhaps you would like to back that up with some good sources.  The Phinney Bible used for markup by Rigdon & Smith wasn't purchased until Oct 1829, long after the Book of Mormon translation had been completed.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I never said the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was canon, its published by the church so it has some authoritative clout.  You're throwing out a lot of facts about Rigdon that are obvious and at the same time you're avoiding my question. 

Each article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is written by a particular author, who provides us with his opinion.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why are you discounting Rigdon's influence on Mormonism?  Do you have an axe to grind against Rigdon, some kind of prejudice that makes it so you consider things he was involved with somehow less legitimate?  I don't understand.

It was you who discounted Rigdon's influence, not me.  I have repeatedly taken issue with your discounting of his ability and influence.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 If you could just answer my questions about Rigdon, and also about how you determine what is revelation it would help me understand your perspective.  Obviously we have a difference of opinion, I just want to understand yours better.  I've tried to explain mine too, and hopefully I've make some headway.  

I provided you with some excellent citations (resources) on revelation, which you have apparently avoided coming to grips with.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Evidence that Joseph's scriptural innovations were in many cases collaborative efforts = non sequitur?  

You failed to read the highlighted portion I was replying to ("its all in the canon we have today." ), which makes your reply to that comment a non sequitur.  You need to follow carefully what is in fact happening in the actual conversation.

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Pointing out that your opinions are on an equal footing with my opinions = invincible ignorance?  

No.  It is a matter of your jettisoning logic and evidence in claiming validity for your opinions.  It is your responsibility to come to grips with the facts.

[Bob Crockett]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The plain fact is that, for whatever reason, the Brethren have not seen fit to dignify the JST as canon. 

 

The JST has been canonized but the Church has a far different view of canonization that other Christian denominations.  Canonization in the Church seems, in my opinion, to be nothing more than a decision as to what is contained in the Quad for people to carry around.  To that extent the Topical Guide is canonized although it is not considered on the same level as, say, D&C 4.  It is just there in the Quad. 

For example, the Church has not really canonized the KJV of the Bible, as it is stripped out the marginal notes from the Quad, so we all believe in a version of the KJV which is less than the full KJV.   Does that mean we do not give meaning to the marginal notes?  No; it means little.  

To a church that believes in continuing revelation, a "canon" is a sort of uncertain and non-binding concept. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The JST has been canonized but the Church has a far different view of canonization that other Christian denominations.  Canonization in the Church seems, in my opinion, to be nothing more than a decision as to what is contained in the Quad for people to carry around.  To that extent the Topical Guide is canonized although it is not considered on the same level as, say, D&C 4.  It is just there in the Quad.

Not so.  Had the JST been canonized, I would expect that a formal proposal on that would have been forthcoming at Conference time.  I would further expect that it would have been fully published as a replacement for the KJV.  Such has never been the case, and I think that wise since the JST is clearly an effort to merely clarify the biblical text.  Joseph and his successors have done the same thing with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Commandments, updating and improving them where it seemed possible.  A matter of inspiration in some cases, and of common sense in others. God gives us brains and expects us to use them.

The notion that anything contained inside the covers of a quad, or downloadable on a smartphone is Canon, including the Topical Guide, doesn't make any sense at all, Bob.  Are you sure that you've had your morning Postum?  

52 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

For example, the Church has not really canonized the KJV of the Bible, as it is stripped out the marginal notes from the Quad, so we all believe in a version of the KJV which is less than the full KJV.   Does that mean we do not give meaning to the marginal notes?  No; it means little.

I suppose, if you are referring to the actual 1611 KJV, which had important marginal translation notes which were considered by the editor and the translators to be equal with the words used in the text -- to the extent that such notes were removed and replaced by other kinds of notes, which change with each edition.  Otherwise, to put footnotes, endnotes, and chapter headings on the same level as the Holy text is absurd -- regardless of language or version.

52 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 To a church that believes in continuing revelation, a "canon" is a sort of uncertain and non-binding concept. 

Perhaps, but only to the extent that members adopt a notion of Scriptural "authority" which rests primarily on folklore.  Without a deeply searching poll, I doubt that we can say much about that.  However, I would be very uncomfortable with the notion of "canon" by opinion poll, since most people don't even know what the word means.

[cdowis]

11 hours ago, blueglass said:

Is it correct that JS incorporated these Clarke and Buck ideas as his own?  - Without any attribution to the sources used? 

Are unaware that the JST was never approved for publication -- it was still a work in progress at the time of his death.

Joseph called this an inspired translation - i.e. that by using the seer stone he saw in his mind's eye the original holographs and fixed the errors.  

Please give the source for the use of the seer stone for all the unique and completed content in the JST.  Please put this CFR in the context of my comment above -- that it was still a WIP, a rough draft not with final  edits.

The JST is not what you pretend it to be.

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not so.  Had the JST been canonized, I would expect that a formal proposal on that would have been forthcoming at Conference time.  I would further expect that it would have been fully published as a replacement for the KJV.  Such has never been the case, and I think that wise since the JST is clearly an effort to merely clarify the biblical text.  Joseph and his successors have done the same thing with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Commandments, updating and improving them where it seemed possible.  A matter of inspiration in some cases, and of common sense in others. God gives us brains and expects us to use them.

The notion that anything contained inside the covers of a quad, or downloadable on a smartphone is Canon, including the Topical Guide, doesn't make any sense at all, Bob.  Are you sure that you've had your morning Postum?  

I suppose, if you are referring to the actual 1611 KJV, which had important marginal translation notes which were considered by the editor and the translators to be equal with the words used in the text -- to the extent that such notes were removed and replaced by other kinds of notes, which change with each edition.  Otherwise, to put footnotes, endnotes, and chapter headings on the same level as the Holy text is absurd -- regardless of language or version.

Perhaps, but only to the extent that members adopt a notion of Scriptural "authority" which rests primarily on folklore.  Without a deeply searching poll, I doubt that we can say much about that.  However, I would be very uncomfortable with the notion of "canon" by opinion poll, since most people don't even know what the word means.

I still maintain that what we carry around in our Quad as JST additionals is canonical.  I have not been able to find it, but I'm somewhat certain the Church voted upon the new scriptures in general conference.  As is the Topical Guide, but it is not considered scripture. 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The plain fact is that, for whatever reason, the Brethren have not seen fit to dignify the JST as canon.  That may boggle your mind, but it might be wise for you to accept it.  As to your sweeping claim about the broader influence of the 1828 Phinney Bible, perhaps you would like to back that up with some good sources.  The Phinney Bible used for markup by Rigdon & Smith wasn't purchased until Oct 1829, long after the Book of Mormon translation had been completed.

Each article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is written by a particular author, who provides us with his opinion.

It was you who discounted Rigdon's influence, not me.  I have repeatedly taken issue with your discounting of his ability and influence.

I provided you with some excellent citations (resources) on revelation, which you have apparently avoided coming to grips with.

I think we should just be done at this point.  I’ve asked you multiple times to answer my questions about why you think Rigdon’s involvement in the JST or Lectures on faith or his background as a minister matters in this conversation about the legitimacy of the JST, and you continue to deflect and distract.  And in this response you’re even turning the accusation around on me saying that I’m the one discounting Rigdon.  Wow, I’m guessing that you’re feeling like you won some debating points.  I wanted to have a thoughtful discussion and try to understand your point of view on this issue because I think its important and its obviously different than mine.  Unfortunately you’ve demonstrated that you don’t want to have a back and forth exchange on a mutually respectful playing field.  

[carbon dioxide]

57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still maintain that what we carry around in our Quad as JST additionals is canonical.  I have not been able to find it, but I'm somewhat certain the Church voted upon the new scriptures in general conference.  As is the Topical Guide, but it is not considered scripture. 

I view the JST additions at canonical.  I don't see a problem with Joseph using outside resources in the work he did.  If Joseph read the Adam Clarke work or any other work and their was truth found in that work and the spirit moved him to use that truth in the Clarke work, why should that be a problem?  Truth is truth no matter where it is found.  I am sure there are many things in the Adam Clarke work that Joseph Smith did not include.  I do not consider the topical guide, footnotes, or dictionary to be canonical.  Those are just aids in the scriptures.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I view the JST additions at canonical.  I don't see a problem with Joseph using outside resources in the work he did.  If Joseph read the Adam Clarke work or any other work and their was truth found in that work and the spirit moved him to use that truth in the Clarke work, why should that be a problem?  Truth is truth no matter where it is found.  I am sure there are many things in the Adam Clarke work that Joseph Smith did not include.  I do not consider the topical guide, footnotes, or dictionary to be canonical.  Those are just aids in the scriptures.

Thanks to you and Bob commenting on this, as this is what I’ve experienced as well and I believe most members view the JST additions the same way.  I think perception is reality in this case, and the JST footnotes and integrated materials in the trenches of every Sunday Mormonism, are definitely treated like canon from my experience.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

........................... I think perception is reality in this case, and the JST footnotes and integrated materials in the trenches of every Sunday Mormonism, are definitely treated like canon from my experience.  

They do say that "perception is everything," and this appears to be what you are saying.  However, making reality a mere matter of perception is illogical at best and irresponsible at worst.  Most Mormons have never used the word "canon" and have no idea what it is.  Some of them do occasionally think of the introductions and chapter headings as authoritative Scripture.  What they may think of the JST footnotes and endnotes yet remains to be examined by poll.  My experience is that it seldom comes up to be used, but when it does I do not find anyone treating it as official Scripture (maybe because hardly anyone comments on that aspect of the footnote -- they simply read it and go on, without further discussion).  In any case, the JST footnotes have only been in LDS Scriptures since 1979, so that only the younger generation has seen it as a normal concomitant of their Scriptures.  If that is the case for you, that might explain why you give it such an unquestioned position of authority.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still maintain that what we carry around in our Quad as JST additionals is canonical.  I have not been able to find it, but I'm somewhat certain the Church voted upon the new scriptures in general conference.

I'd be very interested in a citation to that noteworthy event, if it occurred.

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

  As is the Topical Guide, but it is not considered scripture. 

Canon, but not Scripture?  Did I understand you right here, Bob?

[Calm]

I don't remember what happened when sec 138 was originally added to the PoGP.  I remember when it happened and buying the new insets to stick in my scriptures still I got one with them printed already....

What was the process of canonizing those?  Has it been mentioned in the thread yet?

"In 1976] two items of revelation were added. In 1979 these two items were removed from the Pearl of Great Price and placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, where they now appear as sections 137 and 138” (Pearl of Great Price, introductory note)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-pearl-of-great-price?lang=eng

Edited January 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/05/scriptural-text-for-visions-added-to-pearl-of-great-price?lang=eng

"During the April 3 Saturday afternoon session of conference, President N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, read the following statement: (See page 19.)

“At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“First, a vision of the celestial kingdom, given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in the Kirtland [Ohio] Temple, on January 21, 1836, which deals with the salvation of those who die without a knowledge of the gospel.

“And second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918, showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world and setting forth the doctrine of the redemption of the dead.

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The proposal was unanimously accepted..."

So was there any similar proposal about the footnotes/JST in specific or the updated scriptures in general?

The Bible Dictionary at the very least, included in every quad and Bible, doesn't appear to be considered canon, imo.

"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."

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

"Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JSToffers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

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

Edited January 21, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

At least now the idea of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon using existing materials from the 1800s isn't so farfetched (or, apparently, bothersome to apologists).

While apologists take different views obviously, I think they long thought elements of his environment were in the Book of Mormon. Just that there wasn’t cribbing. That was never thought of the Bible which has always been seen as different by its nature.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't remember what happened when sec 138 was originally added to the PoGP.  I remember when it happened and buying the new insets to stick in my scriptures still I got one with them printed already....

What was the process of canonizing those?  Has it been mentioned in the thread yet?

"In 1976] two items of revelation were added. In 1979 these two items were removed from the Pearl of Great Price and placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, where they now appear as sections 137 and 138” (Pearl of Great Price, introductory note)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-pearl-of-great-price?lang=eng

Here's the whole story:

From Obscurity to Scripture: The Historical Process of Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

Quote

As religious scholar Trever R. Anderson describes, “Latter-day Saints view the words of the Prophet and Apostles as the words of God, yet canonized scripture still stands on a higher plane. Canonization of a revelation or vision validates its authority, prominence, and doctrinal power.” By being canonized, this 1918 vision “was elevated from obscure Church history to central core doctrine.” [64]

 

[Calm]

Cinepro, have you found anything similar to the below for the scriptures since the footnotes were added?

"“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I have not.