Joseph Smith Fixes the Bible

[twopekinguys]

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 From my readings, the LDS church do not believe the JST was finished…so while it is an historical document both the RLDS and LDS share, since the RLDS have the copywrite and according to LDS it “was never finished”, it is not fully utilized.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.

I had heard something about the copyright, but didn’t want to say anything that I couldn’t prove.

I find it a little odd that the lds would have the JST on their website considering the copyright might be held elsewhere. Although, I’m sure with the proper fees and persmissions, it is possible. Although, I would think there would have to be some sort of disclaimer…i.e. published with permission of xxx, or copyright fees paid to xxx.

I didn’t see that on lds.org.

 

[Publisher]

I had heard something about the copyright, but didn’t want to say anything that I couldn’t prove.

I find it a little odd that the lds would have the JST on their website considering the copyright might be held elsewhere. Although, I’m sure with the proper fees and persmissions, it is possible. Although, I would think there would have to be some sort of disclaimer…i.e. published with permission of xxx, or copyright fees paid to xxx.

I didn’t see that on lds.org.

I don’t know…things have become much friendlier between the two groups in the last decade or so…I think with the John Wittmer Association consisting of all types of Latter Day Saint groups…and lots of misunderstandings being discussed out, it’s much more friendly…perhaps the RLDS provided some sort of release for their use…they did share a common history for 14 years.

 

[Todd520]

I had heard something about the copyright, but didn’t want to say anything that I couldn’t prove.

I find it a little odd that the lds would have the JST on their website considering the copyright might be held elsewhere. Although, I’m sure with the proper fees and persmissions, it is possible. Although, I would think there would have to be some sort of disclaimer…i.e. published with permission of xxx, or copyright fees paid to xxx.

I didn’t see that on lds.org.

I’m pretty sure it is in the public domain by this time

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The LDS postion from FAIR

Thanks for the explanation.

I was just curious - is this also reflective to my question earlier in this thread, regarding the changes in Malachi made by Moroni and the unchanged state they have in the JST? Meaning, how would they explain that - in a similar regard or a different case?

 

[twopekinguys]

OK, copyright issues aside, what about the other questions?

Why isn’t it part of the standard works, etc.?

 

[Todd520]

Thanks for the explanation.

I was just curious - is this also reflective to my question earlier in this thread, regarding the changes in Malachi made by Moroni and the unchanged state they have in the JST? Meaning, how would they explain that - in a similar regard or a different case?

We’ll nee more of a LDS scholar to answer your question.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

We’ll nee more of a LDS scholar to answer your question.

Awe nerts. Do you know any? I’m actually sincerely curious.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I am sure we all know that Mormons only believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

Maybe we all know that Joseph Smith, in an effort to make sure it was translated correctly, wrote his “Joseph Smith Translation”. In this, he “fixes” the Bible.

What I find offensive is, when he “fixes” Genesis 50, he actually has The Biblical Joseph making a prophesy…and he INCLUDES HIMSELF in that prophesy! He makes a prophet make a prophesy that includes himself so he can say he fullfilled it!

What an incredible ego

Yes, writes himself in the Bible and Book of Mormon too. Just two of many pieces of evidence that should make people go - Wow, how can people believe this stuff?

 

[Todd520]

OK, copyright issues aside, what about the other questions?

Why isn’t it part of the standard works, etc.?

From FAIR WIKI

1.The primary reason is that there is **no revelation **that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would certainly require such a revelation to be submitted at General Conference and sustained by the members of the Church.

2.The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches;** Brigham Young believed that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn’t accurately reflect Joseph Smith’s original translation**. This mistrust — along with the fact that the LDS Church did not own the copyright to the work — kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. It was only through Bruce R. McConkie’s interest in and use of the JST, along with Robert Matthews’ research on the JST manuscripts in the early 1970s, that these attitudes were reversed.

3.From a practical sense, adoption of the JST would be a stumbling block for converts. Not only are we asking them to accept Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc., but we’d also be requiring them to abandon their traditional Bible. We already do that to some extent — readers of the NIV have to learn to adopt the KJV — but we’d be asking them to go a step further and accept Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, which no other church uses. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.

4.Portions of the JST have been canonized: Our Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew are excerpts from the JST.

 

[dianaiad]

Oh it is more rich than that. Joseph Smith is now a God.

If he is, that would be news to me—and to any other Mormon, for that matter.

Mormons believe that if they are good enough they themselves will become a God and rule their own worlds and people.

Well, that’s refreshing. At least you expand it to ‘worlds,’ not ‘planet,’ singular. Not that your version is accurate either, but, well…

Brigham Young taught that Adam is our God. That there is a consul of gods and that Jesus and Satan are bothers. There is some seriously wacky stuff in the LDS beliefs. Blood Atonement is another one that is “interesting”. The blood shed by Jesus Christ on the cross was not enough to redeem for certain crimes and only by the spilling of your own blood could you be redeemed. Baptism for the dead is another anti-biblical teaching of the LDS. The fact is, the LDS church is polytheistic and therefore not Christian in the slightest.

Everything you have written, above, is straight from the standard anti-playbook, and is either downright wrong or seriously misrepresented.

(shrug)

Ah, well, same old, same old.

 

[PaulDupre]

The LDS postion from FAIR

In other words, for Joseph, “translation” also included “making stuff up”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m pretty sure it is in the public domain by this time

Because the RLDS own the original manuscripts they hold the exclusive right to publish it. They own the copyright on the published versions. It is not in the public domain.

The LDS church does not publish a JST Bible (what the RLDS call the Inspired Version). Their use of it in the publication of their Standard Works is done so under the permission of the RLDS church.

 

[twopekinguys]

From FAIR WIKI

1.The primary reason is that there is **no revelation **that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would certainly require such a revelation to be submitted at General Conference and sustained by the members of the Church.

2.The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches;** Brigham Young believed that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn’t accurately reflect Joseph Smith’s original translation**. This mistrust — along with the fact that the LDS Church did not own the copyright to the work — kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. It was only through Bruce R. McConkie’s interest in and use of the JST, along with Robert Matthews’ research on the JST manuscripts in the early 1970s, that these attitudes were reversed.

3.From a practical sense, adoption of the JST would be a stumbling block for converts. Not only are we asking them to accept Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc., but we’d also be requiring them to abandon their traditional Bible. We already do that to some extent — readers of the NIV have to learn to adopt the KJV — but we’d be asking them to go a step further and accept Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, which no other church uses. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.

4.Portions of the JST have been canonized: Our Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew are excerpts from the JST.

Don’t you think #2 is rather problematic? If BY thought it had been tampered with, why would they canonize some of it as mentioned in #4. To me, that means there was some sort of revelation, which is in contradiction to #1

Also, in #3, the whole thing about it being a stumbling block for converts is rather troubling. Why tailor scriptures around potential converts? Doesn’t really make alot of sense there does it?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Everything you have written, above, is straight from the standard anti-playbook, and is either downright wrong or seriously misrepresented.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Just so people know, FairWiki, quoted by Todd, is an LDS Apologist Website. What Todd is posting is from LDS Apologists.

 

[Todd520]

Because the RLDS own the original manuscripts they hold the exclusive right to publish it. They own the copyright on the published versions. It is not in the public domain.

The LDS church does not publish a JST Bible (what the RLDS call the Inspired Version). Their use of it in the publication of their Standard Works is done so under the permission of the RLDS church.

Anything published before 1923 is in the Public Domain
copyrightguru.com/copyright_duration_table.html

 

[Todd520]

Don’t you think #2 is rather problematic? If BY thought it had been tampered with, why would they canonize some of it as mentioned in #4. To me, that means there was some sort of revelation, which is in contradiction to #1

Also, in #3, the whole thing about it being a stumbling block for converts is rather troubling. Why tailor scriptures around potential converts? Doesn’t really make alot of sense there does it?

Hi TPG,
It sounds as if later revelation did get ‘important’ bits cannonized, and the JS commentary is still available…Sticking with the KJV without loss of revealed Sacred Scripture seems smart.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Anything published before 1923 is in the Public Domain
copyrightguru.com/copyright_duration_table.html

The JST is a publication of original documents that are owned by the FLDS. This ownership gives them exclusive rights to publication. That is the law.

 

[Publisher]

The JST is a publication of original documents that are owned by the FLDS. This ownership gives them exclusive rights to publication. That is the law.

The FLDS are a Mormon sect that practices polygam…a “break-away” group from the LDS church with headquarters in Salt Lake City.

The RLDS, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(now Community of Christ) is the group that owns the JST…and disavowed polygamy right from the beginning…this group rallied around Emma Smith when Brigham took the majority of the Saints west…Emma and her children stayed behind and in 1860 the church was reorganized under Joseph Smith III, Emma and Joseph’s son.

The RLDS publish the IV (Inspired Version) and along with the BoM and D&C, it makes up the “Three Standard Books” of scripture of the RLDS.

 

[twopekinguys]

Hi TPG,
It sounds as if later revelation did get ‘important’ bits cannonized, and the JS commentary is still available…Sticking with the KJV without loss of revealed Sacred Scripture seems smart.

So, you see where I am coming from, fairwiki is saying that there hasn’t been revelation, but yet in order for any of it to be canonized, there had to have been some sort of revelation.

I would also have to take exception to the “important bits”. (not in a mean way) Aren’t all scripture “important bits”? How can they take some of the JST and canonize it, but disregared the rest of his translation?

When you tie that in with the whole “stumbling block” for converts comment, it just all doesn’t add up.

1. Fairwiki says no revelation, but yet revelation is required to add to scripture/doctrine for the lds (as far as I understand), and parts of it are in fact canonized.
2. They freely admit that the JST would be a “stumbling block” for converts. Why? What is it in there that they think will affect a possible convert? Why not be up front about it from the beginning?
3. By only canonizing part of it, aren’t they “quote mining”, or “scripture mining” in a sense?

Getting back to number 2, if I was an investigator, and I found out that the lds didn’t want to disclose this information because they thought it would be a “stumbling block”, it would make me start thinking about what else they consider to be a “stubling block”, that they aren’t telling me about.