The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

[Megatron]

The role of the Holy Bible in LDS theology is quite puzzling, especially when compared with Book of Mormon. In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon we are assured that the BoM is “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible”…later in the same introduction a quote from Joseph Smith informs us that “I (JS) told the brethren that the Book of Mormon ws the most correct of any book of earth…”

The 8th Article of Faith of the LDS state that the Bible is only to be regarded as “true” in so far in that it is translated correctly. If that is the case, how can the two above segments in the introduction of the Book of Mormon be compatable with one another? Simply logic shows that they are dimetrically opposed to one another.

If Joseph Smith is regarded as a “prophet, seer and revelator” in these latter-days, why do the LDS not use the fulness of his translation of the New Testament in their worship and for points of doctrinal clarity? Wouldn’t it seem that this would be necessary rather than relying upon the apostate KJV of the Bible that they currently use? Although there are occasional references to the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) that appear as footnotes in the LDS version of the Bible, the full JST is not, nor ever has been “official” scripture. What gives?

 

[valient_Lucy]

The role of the Holy Bible in LDS theology is quite puzzling, especially when compared with Book of Mormon. In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon we are assured that the BoM is “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible”…later in the same introduction a quote from Joseph Smith informs us that “I (JS) told the brethren that the Book of Mormon ws the most correct of any book of earth…”

The 8th Article of Faith of the LDS state that the Bible is only to be regarded as “true” in so far in that it is translated correctly. If that is the case, how can the two above segments in the introduction of the Book of Mormon be compatable with one another? Simply logic shows that they are dimetrically opposed to one another.

If Joseph Smith is regarded as a “prophet, seer and revelator” in these latter-days, why do the LDS not use the fulness of his translation of the New Testament in their worship and for points of doctrinal clarity? Wouldn’t it seem that this would be necessary rather than relying upon the apostate KJV of the Bible that they currently use? Although there are occasional references to the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) that appear as footnotes in the LDS version of the Bible, the full JST is not, nor ever has been “official” scripture. What gives?

That’s a good question. Since I’m Catholic, and have never been Mormon, I can’t imagine what their line of thinking could be. I think you’re very right, if the translation is so important for it’s inspiration, then why use a translation by an apostate church?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

They say that about the bible to allow room for themselves to question portions of scripture that contridict thier theology. It’s as simple as that.

With regard to the Joseph Smith bible. The LDS Church doesn’t hold the copy rights to it. Emma Smith took the copy rights and manuscripts with her when she formed the Reorganized LDS Church. The KJV was the bible plagerized when the BOM was written, so they naturally use that one.

 

[PaulDupre]

They also use the bible and claim to believe it so that they can appear more Christian to outsiders. They use the KJV because it is the most widely used by Christians and so provides a certain credibilty with the poorly catechised.
Paul

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I had a copy of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
It was horrible, a real bastardization of the text.
I gave it to a Christian cult-researcher friend of mine for his reference library.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I had a copy of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
It was horrible, a real bastardization of the text.
I gave it to a Christian cult-researcher friend of mine for his reference library.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

Ever see the New World Translation?

“…and the Word was a god.”

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Believe it or not, Joseph Smith’s “Inspired” Version
is far worse than the New World Translation, which itself is really bad.

Smith adds entire sentences and phrases to the text.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[Damascus]

I’m sorry OP, but did you say “doctrinal clarity”???

Its just funny that is in your OP. What doctrinal clarity? I think its a stretch to say that there is anything doctrinal or anything resembling clarity in that Cult.

 

[AnneBOK]

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) IS used quite often in Sunday meetings and Sunday School classes. The actual number of pages of the Bible that were actually “re-translated” by Joseph Smith is extremely small in the relation to the actual number of pages in the Bible. Most copies of the Bible that church members carry include the JST as a spearate section which can be referred to readily for any discussion. The frequency of use of the JST will vary greatly depending on the person and the circumstances.

Anne

 

[AnneBOK]

They also use the bible and claim to believe it so that they can appear more Christian to outsiders. They use the KJV because it is the most widely used by Christians and so provides a certain credibilty with the poorly catechised.
Paul

THey do not just “claim” to believe - they DO believe and probably know more about it than an embarassingly large number of Catholics.

Anne

 

[Megatron]

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) IS used quite often in Sunday meetings and Sunday School classes. The actual number of pages of the Bible that were actually “re-translated” by Joseph Smith is extremely small in the relation to the actual number of pages in the Bible. Most copies of the Bible that church members carry include the JST as a spearate section which can be referred to readily for any discussion. The frequency of use of the JST will vary greatly depending on the person and the circumstances.

Anne

Thanks for the note, Anne.

As an ex-Mo I’m well aware of the various adjustments of the JST in the footnotes of the text as well as larger additions (cf. Matt 24) in the JST that are in the back of the Tripple Combination.

There is, however, a substantial amount of the JST that many members are unaware of. I became aware of the JST in its full form for the first time when I taught an Institute class.

 

[Megatron]

I’m sorry OP, but did you say “doctrinal clarity”???

Its just funny that is in your OP. What doctrinal clarity? I think its a stretch to say that there is anything doctrinal or anything resembling clarity in that Cult.

Fair enough, Damascus. I see your point.

What I mean to convey is that it is “clear” and “clarifying” with regards to the nuances of Mormonism and how it distances itself from Christianity.

 

[AnneBOK]

Thanks for the note, Anne.

As an ex-Mo I’m well aware of the various adjustments of the JST in the footnotes of the text as well as larger additions (cf. Matt 24) in the JST that are in the back of the Tripple Combination.

There is, however, a substantial amount of the JST that many members are unaware of. I became aware of the JST in its full form for the first time when I taught an Institute class.

And it is surprising how little of the Bible is actually JST. I thought it would be much more (because of all the “noise” that was made about it by other churches…)

Anne

 

[tequilamac]

The role of the Holy Bible in LDS theology is quite puzzling, especially when compared with Book of Mormon. In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon we are assured that the BoM is “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible”…later in the same introduction a quote from Joseph Smith informs us that “I (JS) told the brethren that the Book of Mormon ws the most correct of any book of earth…”

The 8th Article of Faith of the LDS state that the Bible is only to be regarded as “true” in so far in that it is translated correctly. If that is the case, how can the two above segments in the introduction of the Book of Mormon be compatable with one another? Simply logic shows that they are dimetrically opposed to one another.

If Joseph Smith is regarded as a “prophet, seer and revelator” in these latter-days, why do the LDS not use the fulness of his translation of the New Testament in their worship and for points of doctrinal clarity? Wouldn’t it seem that this would be necessary rather than relying upon the apostate KJV of the Bible that they currently use? Although there are occasional references to the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) that appear as footnotes in the LDS version of the Bible, the full JST is not, nor ever has been “official” scripture. What gives?

I’ll give it a shot. I believe Joseph Smith did not “use the fullness of his translation of the New Testament” because he did not write the original. As a prophet standing against what he perceived to be the wrongs of all other religions and people of the world, he had to have his own translation and own bible.

The immense egos of false prophets will not allow them to do other than to plagiarize another’s material if they do not simply write their own. In Smith’s case- he did both- wrote his own and plagiarized the other.
Most false prophets write new books and plagiarize the old…

 

[Allweather]

They also use the bible and claim to believe it so that they can appear more Christian to outsiders. They use the KJV because it is the most widely used by Christians and so provides a certain credibilty with the poorly catechised.
Paul

Richard Abanes, in his book One Nation Under Gods, describes in some detail the mainstreaming of the Mormon church beginning around 1902, which was less than a decade after Utah finally achieved statehood. The specifics of the weirder Mormon beliefs are avoided by the little missionaries, and are probably not well-understood by them in any case. A couple of days ago I had an amicable debate with my girlfriend’s father and brother, and was very surprised to hear that they seem to be unaware of many important facts concerning the early Mormon church. The brother stated that polygamy didn’t begin until after the Mormons arrived in Salt Lake, and seemed surprised and doubtful when I told him that JS was taking on new wives as early as 1838. I told him that JS had somewhere between 33 and 48 wives. He responded by shaking his head, but said that, in any case, it doesn’t matter. I told him that Mormon troubles in Ohio and Missouri could be traced in part to polygamy (as that was the gist of our argument). Today’s Mormons do not apparently deal with the sources of Mormon troubles in Ohio and Missouri, preferring to believe that JS was persecuted because he was a Holy Man, and suffered just as the OT prophets and Jesus himself suffered and ultimately died. Rather, the Mormons were persecuted there, because they were seen as immoral by the Christian people who lived around them. Today’s Mormons have had to “mainstream” themselves by diminishing their weird beliefs, and have had some success at doing this.

 

[PaulDupre]

THey do not just “claim” to believe - they DO believe and probably know more about it than an embarassingly large number of Catholics.

Anne

Sorry to disagree, Anne, but as a former Mormon myself I can tell you that the LDS understanding of the bible, even among the well educated, is amazingly shallow. Of course they think they know the bible. They mostly know a few proof texts that they are taught will disarm Christians and support Joseph Smith and the BOM, but they have little understanding of the contexts in which those texts occur.

They also make a number of false assumptions about the environment in which the texts were written. They assume that the early Christians (and perhaps the ancient Hebrews) were polygamous, dead-people-baptising, endowment-attending, godhood-seeking Mormons complete with secret handshakes, though there is no evidence for any of it. So naturally they misinterpret the texts based on back-flushing Joseph Smith’s doctrines into the bible texts.

The next time LDS missionaries come to your house, get them off the script and try to discuss the bible deeply with them (assuming you know the bible deeply). They will be lost and helpless within a minute. But they will bear their testimonies, so they have that going for them.

God bless,
Paul

 

[tequilamac]

THey do not just “claim” to believe - they DO believe and probably know more about it than an embarassingly large number of Catholics.

Anne

Three reasons why this is both false and true

First of all they use Joseph Smith’s translation.
Second J.S. translation is based on a Protestant translation.
Third-they use many more other texts than they use their Bible.

So what does this mean? It means that LDS know their false translation better than Catholics know the LDS false translation. For that we can thank the care and concern of our Holy Mother. Nothing embarrassing about that at all.

It also means that Catholics know the actual Bible better than LDS.