this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The parts in the footnotes and the JST section at the back of the Bible aren't considered scripture? News to me.

of course not, unless you consider the chapter headings and the Bible dictionary to be scripture too.

Originally Posted by Tex

The 1970's saw the first LDS scholars (led by Robert Matthews) even getting a chance to examine the original manuscripts in a century, and that was only because the old RLDS church historian had died and the new guy was more friendly to the Church.

apparently matthews has a high view of the JST. Stephen E. Robinson doesn't. The JST has not been integrated into our canon. KJV is the Church's official Bible.

But with apologies, to say JST is not scripture is just uninformed.

you haven't offered anything to back this up. you're just asserting.

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by Tex

The parts in the footnotes and the JST section at the back of the Bible aren't considered scripture? News to me.

I am just jumping in on this discussion. Those parts are scripture? I seriously have never heard that...does the church consider that all scripture (though I can see JST being considered scripture by many) or just as a guide to help members. As has been said, I put the footnotes as well as the chapter descriptions, etc. as a guide for members and not scripture. Maybe its just me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

of course not, unless you consider the chapter headings and the Bible dictionary to be scripture too.

apparently matthews has a high view of the JST. Stephen E. Robinson doesn't. The JST has not been integrated into our canon. KJV is the Church's official Bible.

Well, I may have jumped the gun a little as far as calling it official canon. If you buy a non-LDS published KJV off the shelf, yes, THAT is our official scripture.

But the JST is liberally quoted from in General Conference and official church publications (Ensign, lesson manuals, etc). It may not be "official" scripture in the sense that the church publicly identifies it as canon, but it's as close to it as it gets.

I'm just trying to dispel the notion that the church has either rejected or distanced itself from it. I think if they could, they would fully embrace it ... and they've done so as far as was possible.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by UteStar

As has been said, I put the footnotes as well as the chapter descriptions, etc. as a guide for members and not scripture. Maybe its just me.

It is just you. You're wrong and everybody else is right.

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by YOhio

It is just you. You're wrong and everybody else is right.

Oh, that sucks.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, I may have jumped the gun a little as far as calling it official canon. If you buy a non-LDS published KJV off the shelf, yes, THAT is our official scripture.

But the JST is liberally quoted from in General Conference and official church publications (Ensign, lesson manuals, etc). It may not be "official" scripture in the sense that the church publicly identifies it as canon, but it's as close to it as it gets.

So what? The NRSV has been quoted in conference. If you read Jesus the Christ on your mission, Talmage quotes liberally from different versions of the Bible. Just illustrates there's more than one way to do it. If you want to read different versions of the Bible, or study the Greek, great. If you think the JST is all that, good for you.

Originally Posted by Tex

I think if they could, they would fully embrace it ... and they've done so as far as was possible.

I think they wouldn't. And I don't consider relegating something to footnotes or an appendix "to embrace as far as possible."

Originally Posted by Tex

Back what up?

JST is scripture.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

So what? The NRSV has been quoted in conference. If you read Jesus the Christ on your mission, Talmage quotes liberally from different versions of the Bible. Just illustrates there's more than one way to do it. If you want to read different versions of the Bible, or study the Greek, great. If you think the JST is all that, good for you.

I think they wouldn't. And I don't consider relegating something to footnotes or an appendix "to embrace as far as possible."

Again, when the new version of the scriptures was undertaken (1) there was a lot of suspicion regarding the integrity of the JST as controlled by the RLDS, and (2) there were strict copyright issues with the church adding it as a publication. The church ended up negotiating a deal with the RLDS that allowed us to include about 60% (IIRC) of the most doctrinally-significant passages, and the stipulation that they be in the footnotes was part of that deal. It was not a "relegation" ... it was as good as could legally be arranged.

I don't know that I can say that if those 2 issues had not existed, that the church would've tossed the KJV and reprinted a new JST-incorporated Bible. I think there were also other compelling reasons to stay with the KJV. But the point is, after Matthews did his work there was a huge awakening toward the JST, and it has taken a fresh position of prominence in the Church ... one unparalleled by the NRSV or any other.

The reason being, of course, that the JST was given by revelation.

[MikeWaters]

I would still like to know what Matthew, John, and Paul said, even if THEY didn't get it right.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Again, when the new version of the scriptures was undertaken (1) there was a lot of suspicion regarding the integrity of the JST as controlled by the RLDS, and (2) there were strict copyright issues with the church adding it as a publication. The church ended up negotiating a deal with the RLDS that allowed us to include about 60% (IIRC) of the most doctrinally-significant passages, and the stipulation that they be in the footnotes was part of that deal. It was not a "relegation" ... it was as good as could legally be arranged.

copyright issues are irrelevant. If the JST was authoritative and binding, The Church can just tell us to go and buy the RLDS version, just like different-language versions of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Tex

there was a huge awakening toward the JST, and it has taken a fresh position of prominence in the Church ...

i.e., the footnotes

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would still like to know what Matthew, John, and Paul said, even if THEY didn't get it right.

Exactly. That is why the current footnote/appendix approach is better than adopting the JST. You get to see both versions.