Joseph Smith Fixes the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Publisher said:
I’m very sorry…I don’t have any books here at work to reference.

As far as you doubting my profile…Friend Thomas, am I to understand that because I do not disparage the LDS or RLDS or Joseph Smith, nor do I condemn them for their beliefs that your conclusion is that I am not truly a Quaker? LOL…you REALLY don’t know too many Friends do you?
Click to expand...
I am sorry you cannot support your claims. It would have been interesting. And no, it has nothing to do you not want to disparage. Your defense, though, sounds LDS. Again, that is fine.

Again, too bad you can;t support your claims.
 
SirThomasMore said:
I am sorry you cannot support your claims. It would have been interesting. And no, it has nothing to do you not want to disparage. Your defense, though, sounds LDS. Again, that is fine.

Again, too bad you can;t support your claims.
Click to expand...
I agree. Let’s wait until he gets back home and has the materials on hand so we can see these similarities.
 
SirThomasMore said:
I am sorry you cannot support your claims. It would have been interesting. And no, it has nothing to do you not want to disparage. Your defense, though, sounds LDS. Again, that is fine.

Again, too bad you can;t support your claims.
Click to expand...
Friend Thomas, if you want documented proof…I’m sure if you obtain a copy of the JST and compare some of the verses, you will confirm your own inquiry. I believe Herald House, the publishing arm of the RLDS(now Community of Christ) publishes several books…some of which I have in my library.

I’m not “defending” Joseph Smith or the LDS in this regard…I am stating a fact. The JST “translation” had made many changes to the text in the 19th century that the RSV and other modern versions made in the 20th. That I don’t have “proof” at my finger tips to satisfy you…does not make the statement false…it simply indicates I don’t have ready reference to satisfy you at a monents notice…but your own research will confirm it to you if you take the “extra mile” and look it up.

While I was not aware I was “defending” the JST…that I sound LDS…I’ll take as a compliment.

Peace to you friend.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
I agree. Let’s wait until he gets back home and has the materials on hand so we can see these similarities.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some of our LDS posters can assist. I made a statement, based on my own reading some years ago. The books are available for your research as well. I believe there are some pamphlets the RLDS publish…or published as they are moving away from the BoM as an historical document…and they view the IV as more of a historical document than a “Standard Work” any longer.

That I have no “at my finger tip” reference to offer comparison of the JST and modern translations, is not an issue for me…but it seems to be an issue for you and friend Thomas…but then…I have no need to “prove” the LDS are “wrong”.

Signed; An LDS Masquerading As a Quaker.😃 (Which is news to the Meeting I attend.)
 
Publisher said:
Perhaps some of our LDS posters can assist. I made a statement, based on my own reading some years ago. The books are available for your research as well. I believe there are some pamphlets the RLDS publish…or published as they are moving away from the BoM as an historical document…and they view the IV as more of a historical document than a “Standard Work” any longer.

That I have no “at my finger tip” reference to offer comparison of the JST and modern translations, is not an issue for me…but it seems to be an issue for you and friend Thomas…but then…I have no need to “prove” the LDS are “wrong”.

Signed; An LDS Masquerading As a Quaker.😃 (Which is news to the Meeting I attend.)
Click to expand...
When you have the resources available to you, it would be great if you would substantiate your claim. It is only fair to ask a person making an assertion to back it up, and it isn’t fair for that person to respond by essentially saying “do your own research”.
 
Well, hang on. Maybe I can get an old friend with RLDS affiliations to participate.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
When you have the resources available to you, it would be great if you would substantiate your claim. It is only fair to ask a person making an assertion to back it up, and it isn’t fair for that person to respond by essentially saying “do your own research”.
Click to expand...
Yes friend, I do have the resources…if I can find the books I read decades ago tonight, I’d be more than willing to share the info with you…but if you wish to dismiss my comments out of hand simply because I don’t have references at my fingertips…I do understand…that typically is the “apologetic” response when faced with info one does not appreciate and who only wishes the negative to be supported…I’m ok with that too…“proving” or “disproving” Joseph Smiths “prophetic” role…isn’t part of my faith tradition…God speaks to every heart through the Light Within…that Joseph “minded the Light” in this instance causes me no discomfort.

I understand the reticence many have to even consider that Joseph Smith may have accurately “translated” some passages in the KJV that we now take for granted in the RSV…does that make his changes “inspired” or simply trying to have the text in question make more sense…and the “changes” in SOME of the passages happen to co-incide with modern translations such as the RSV is no great surprise.
 
The LDS postion from FAIR
Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically ‘perfect’ Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.
Click to expand...
Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a ‘translation’ as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.
Click to expand...
 
Publisher said:
Friend Thomas, if you want documented proof…I’m sure if you obtain a copy of the JST and compare some of the verses, you will confirm your own inquiry. I believe Herald House, the publishing arm of the RLDS(now Community of Christ) publishes several books…some of which I have in my library.

I’m not “defending” Joseph Smith or the LDS in this regard…I am stating a fact. The JST “translation” had made many changes to the text in the 19th century that the RSV and other modern versions made in the 20th. That I don’t have “proof” at my finger tips to satisfy you…does not make the statement false…it simply indicates I don’t have ready reference to satisfy you at a monents notice…but your own research will confirm it to you if you take the “extra mile” and look it up.

While I was not aware I was “defending” the JST…that I sound LDS…I’ll take as a compliment.

Peace to you friend.
Click to expand...
and to you.

I will wait your proof. I am in no hurry and I am of the mindset that when someone makes a claim, they need to support it. Be safe.
 
SirThomasMore said:
and to you.

I will wait your proof. I am in no hurry and I am of the mindset that when someone makes a claim, they need to support it. Be safe.
Click to expand...
I will give my library a cursory look tonight…you and I are of different mindsets…I do not feel I have a “need” to support my statements…I am not trying to prove anything…but offer a few comments on any given subject that I am acquainted with…your doubt or acceptance of those comments do not change their truth…nor does my finding “backup” documentation to satisfy you change the truth or my statements either. That you could find the information yourself…but don’t care to…is…interesting to me on a very different level.

Peace
 
OK, I have a couple of questions that maybe our lds friends can answer.
  1. Why isn’t the JST one of the standard works? From what I have seen/read/heard, the KJV is what is used.
“AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CROSS REFERENCES TO THE STANDARD WORKS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS”

From this website: scriptures.lds.org
  1. Has a reason ever been given why it isn’t part of the standard works?
 
twopekinguys said:
OK, I have a couple of questions that maybe our lds friends can answer.
  1. Why isn’t the JST one of the standard works? From what I have seen/read/heard, the KJV is what is used.
“AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CROSS REFERENCES TO THE STANDARD WORKS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS”

From this website: scriptures.lds.org
  1. Has a reason ever been given why it isn’t part of the standard works?
Click to expand...
I’d like to offer my opinion…based on reading and discussions…I may not have any documentation at my fingertips…but I’m sure our LDS brothers and sisters can offer more information.

The JST(Inspired Version) is held in copywrite by the Reorgainzed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(now Community of Christ). The IV(JST) IS a standard work of the RLDS church. From my readings, the LDS church do not believe the JST was finished…so while it is an historical document both the RLDS and LDS share, since the RLDS have the copywrite and according to LDS it “was never finished”, it is not fully utilized. Similar to the Book of Abraham…the RLDS acknowledge it is a work of Joseph Smith…it was never authorized by Conference as scripture in Joseph Smith’s lifetime…perhaps another difference between the two groups,but the RLDS do not use the BoA as scripture.

There are notes in the KJV published by the LDS that reference the JST…and the Pearl of Great Price has major portions of the JST in it…“Book of Moses” and a chapter of Matthew reflect the changes made by Joseph Smith in the first chapters of Genesis and in Matthew…the first chapter of John is also much different. BUT these changes are reflected as notes in the KJV of the LDS…the IV simply is not one of their standard works as it is with the RLDS.

It is possible that some animosity between the two groups precluded the IV from being used by LDS…the RLDS and LDS are much more friendly today than they were in the past…that the RLDS hold the publishing rights may have been a major factor in the LDS not using the JST as their “official Bible” as the RLDS did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top