Why don't Mormons use the Inspired (AKA Joseph Smith Translation) Version of the Bible?

[xixxvmcm85]

Joseph Smith Jr. alleged that the Bible had been corrupted by “the abominable church”, and so he was “called” to not only bring about novel scripture (see the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc) but also to re-translate the Bible.

He did so and completed his translation in 1833 (11 years prior to his death, contrary to what I was told my entire childhood by my LDS family).

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (AKA Community of Christ) uses this version in full as their standard Bible, so why don’t the LDS?

It seems odd, if not down right contradictory, to claim all other versions of the Bible (including the KJV) to be erroneous, to actually have the “inspired” version in publication yet not use it!

 

[xixxvmcm85]

bump.

 

[BDawg]

Hi x,

One reason is historical. For a long time, the Reorganized LDS Church had the JST manuscripts, and the LDS leadership mistrusted them. Bob Matthews (BYU Religion) got with the RLDS historians, and concluded that the manuscripts were ok. Since then, the LDS have incorporated the JST into their KJV bibles as footnotes and an appendix.

Another reason for not using it as our primary Bible is just the missionary value of having a standard Bible translation in common with the rest of the English-speaking world.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A portion of the Matthew JST is in the Pearl of Great Price.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hi x,

…] Since then, the LDS have incorporated the JST into their KJV bibles as footnotes and an appendix. …]

A portion of the Matthew JST is in the Pearl of Great Price.

Yes, and the Book of Moses is the JST of the Torah (at least selections of it).

BDawg:

Another reason for not using it as our primary Bible is just the missionary value of having a standard Bible translation in common with the rest of the English-speaking world.

I can understand that, so why not read the JST in church and at home but equip missionaries with KJVs, NKJVs, NIVs, etc?

It’s just that growing up I remember a few times having questions about reconciling LDS teaching with clear teaching in the Bible, for which the response almost always was “Well that must be one of those places where the Bible has been corrupted and Joseph Smith needed to re-translate” (see the 8th Article of Faith).

It just seems that this kind of a priori response could be avoided all together if the LDS used the Bible, in its entirety, as Joseph Smith was “called” to translate it.

I haven’t read the “Inspired Version” before, so I’m not sure if it lines up in those touchy spots with LDS doctrine or not. I’m assuming it must be as trinitarian in nature as the regular Bible is seeing as the RLDS are trinitarians.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, and the Book of Moses is the JST of the Torah (at least selections of it).

I can understand that, so why not read the JST in church and at home but equip missionaries with KJVs, NKJVs, NIVs, etc?

It’s just that growing up I remember a few times having questions about reconciling LDS teaching with clear teaching in the Bible, for which the response almost always was “Well that must be one of those places where the Bible has been corrupted and Joseph Smith needed to re-translate” (see the 8th Article of Faith).

It just seems that this kind of a priori response could be avoided all together if the LDS used the Bible, in its entirety, as Joseph Smith was “called” to translate it.

I haven’t read the “Inspired Version” before, so I’m not sure if it lines up in those touchy spots with LDS doctrine or not. I’m assuming it must be as trinitarian in nature as the regular Bible is seeing as the RLDS are trinitarians.

The other problem with this approach is that most of the world does not speak English, and thus does not use the KJV. Making the “commonality”, not so common.

If Mormon missionaries used the JST, any Christian they approached would immediately recognize that the LDS faith was false. The Mormon missionaries could not use their line, that the BoM is an additional testament to Christ because they would be claiming that it was an additional testament to a rewritten Bible, that no one uses, or would ever use.

In short, it would put a damper on their entire deception.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The other problem with this approach is that most of the world does not speak English, and thus does not use the KJV. Making the “commonality”, not so common.

If Mormon missionaries used the JST, any Christian they approached would immediately recognize that the LDS faith was false. The Mormon missionaries could not use their line, that the BoM is an additional testament to Christ because they would be claiming that it was an additional testament to a rewritten Bible, that no one uses, or would ever use.

In short, it would put a damper on their entire deception.

Interesting hypothesis, but since it speaks on the intent of the LDS church, I’m not sure if it flows so obviously (in other words I’m not presumptuous enough to claim that the LDS church is purposefully not using the JST in its entirety simply because doing so would hinder conversion).

After all, I don’t actually know what’s in the entire JST (maybe I ought to go check it out from the library).

Maybe there’s another possibility I’m missing. So far, I’ve concluded there are two:

1. The JST contains all the “unique” Mormon doctrines, which usage would implement the LDS even more “cult-like” than they are today.
2. The JST contains none of the “unique”, or few of the “unique” Mormon doctrines, which usage would abolish the adage “as far as it is translated correctly” in the 8th Article of Faith, meaning LDS Sunday schools and seminaries could no longer use the “it’s just an error in the Bible” excuse when confronted with a discrepancy in teaching and scripture.

Now I’m really curious to read it!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting hypothesis, but since it speaks on the intent of the LDS church, I’m not sure if it flows so obviously (in other words I’m not presumptuous enough to claim that the LDS church is purposefully not using the JST in its entirety simply because doing so would hinder conversion).

After all, I don’t actually know what’s in the entire JST (maybe I ought to go check it out from the library).

Maybe there’s another possibility I’m missing. So far, I’ve concluded there are two:

1. The JST contains all the “unique” Mormon doctrines, which usage would implement the LDS even more “cult-like” than they are today.
2. The JST contains none of the “unique”, or few of the “unique” Mormon doctrines, which usage would abolish the adage “as far as it is translated correctly” in the 8th Article of Faith, meaning LDS Sunday schools and seminaries could no longer use the “it’s just an error in the Bible” excuse when confronted with a discrepancy in teaching and scripture.

Now I’m really curious to read it!

They have to know that the rest of the world would see their usage of a made up book with the title “Bible” as about invalid as it gets. Whether in inhibiting conversions or bringing on criticism, the usage of such a book in place of the Bible would be viewed as CULT. And would do nothing to support their argument that they are Christian.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

They have to know that the rest of the world would see their usage of a made up book with the title “Bible” as about invalid as it gets. Whether in inhibiting conversions or bringing on criticism, the usage of such a book in place of the Bible would be viewed as CULT. And would do nothing to support their argument that they are Christian.

Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done just this (with their “New World Translation”) and despite being a younger organization then the LDS church, they have more members!

So I don’t think the issue of having re-translated the Bible would be of much concern, rather the issue of whether the re-translation was even necessary to begin with.

 

[AMDGtoo]

it would put a damper on their entire deception.

I’m afraid that from my experience, I would have to give this hypothesis some credence. I have a number of different translations of the Bible, including the KJV (which is written in the English used in the 1600s and not used or easily understood today), the NIV, the slightly older than the KJV–the Douay-Rheimes, the Jerusalem translated from the original languages, and the NAB. Still, when my daughter converted, she wanted my KJV, and when the missionaries came over without their “Quads” and needed to look something up in a Bible, even they would only use the KJV. Guess they didn’t want to take the chance that another translation would translate a word differently and so destroy their deception!