this statement, still published in Bible Dictionary...

[Sleeping in EQ]

This discussion has reminded me that Barlow's book would be an excellent read.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

Impossible to know via academic means. There is no way to verify what Matthew, etc. actually said, or even whether it was properly recorded.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

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.

Copyright was quite relevant at the time, as were fragile relations with the RLDS church. You're speaking from a bull in a china-shop mentality, and that's not how the Brethren approached it.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

i.e., the footnotes

Do you see NRSV references in the footnotes?

[All-American]

Question. Tex throws around the "R" word to give authority to the JST-- but did Joseph ever claim that all the changes being made were done by revelation? Was there ever any kind of declaration of authority given to the revisions by Joseph himself?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Copyright was quite relevant at the time, as were fragile relations with the RLDS church. You're speaking from a bull in a china-shop mentality, and that's not how the Brethren approached it.

You're playing word games. It's relevant to obtaining the JST from RLDS, but it's irrelevant to the issue of JST's authority. Why haven't the Brethren ever encouraged us to get a copy of the JST, then or now? Because it's not scripture.

Originally Posted by Tex

Do you see NRSV references in the footnotes?

No, no NRSV refs in that "prominent position."

[All-American]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

No, no NRSV refs in that "prominent position."

But you will often see references to the original Greek or Hebrew word because of a sub-par translation.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

But you will often see references to the original Greek or Hebrew word because of a sub-par translation.

exactly, that say the same things the NIV and the NRSV say.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

Question. Tex throws around the "R" word to give authority to the JST-- but did Joseph ever claim that all the changes being made were done by revelation? Was there ever any kind of declaration of authority given to the revisions by Joseph himself?

I'll have to cross-reference my JST materials when I get home, and get back to you.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You're playing word games. It's relevant to obtaining the JST from RLDS, but it's irrelevant to the issue of JST's authority. Why haven't the Brethren ever encouraged us to get a copy of the JST, then or now? Because it's not scripture.

No, you're playing the games. I agreed that it isn't canon. You're trying to say it's no different from any other translation--NRSV? NIV? Greek? Hebrew? all the same!--and that's not the case.

And lest we forget, some of the JST is indeed scripture. We may look at it differently because it's in the PoGP instead of in footnotes, but Joseph Smith didn't. It just so happens those were the passages the Church had available when the Pearl was first published, IIRC, in England.

More below.

Originally Posted by All-American

But you will often see references to the original Greek or Hebrew word because of a sub-par translation.

If people think I'm on an anti-other-translation kick, they are mistaken. I just don't think the other translations and the JST are on the same plane, and I'm surprised that there is resistance to that idea.

"So why does KJV get special treatment in your eyes, then?" Because the church has standardized on it, and it is the version that the modern revelations refer to, as the First Presidency has indicated. That doesn't mean there isn't value in other translations ... just that they don't need to be incorporated into our curricula.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'll have to cross-reference my JST materials when I get home, and get back to you.


And lest we forget, some of the JST is indeed scripture. We may look at it differently because it's in the PoGP instead of in footnotes, but Joseph Smith didn't. It just so happens those were the passages the Church had available when the Pearl was first published, IIRC, in England.

Why does that matter? The living prophet has the authority to determine what's scripture. Matthews does NOT. And they determined that JSM and Mos are scripture, the rest of JST, no.

Originally Posted by Tex

If people think I'm on an anti-other-translation kick, they are mistaken. I just don't think the other translations and the JST are on the same plane, and I'm surprised that there is resistance to that idea.

(JST - JSM - Mos): not binding or normative
NIV + NRSV+... : not binding or normative

no obligation exists to follow either

Originally Posted by Tex

"So why does KJV get special treatment in your eyes, then?" Because the church has standardized on it, and it is the version that the modern revelations refer to, as the First Presidency has indicated. That doesn't mean there isn't value in other translations ... just that they don't need to be incorporated into our curricula.

The KJV is my personal Bible too, but the NIV and NRSV are more doctrinally accurate and congenial to LDS beliefs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

Question. Tex throws around the "R" word to give authority to the JST-- but did Joseph ever claim that all the changes being made were done by revelation? Was there ever any kind of declaration of authority given to the revisions by Joseph himself?

I did some quick referencing, and here's what I discovered:

- Beginning the translation in late 1831, Joseph wrote, "I resumed the translation of the Scriptures, and continued to labor in this branch of my calling ..."

- When he recorded Moses 1, Joseph wrote it contained "the words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceeding high mountain."

- Later when recording Moses 7 he wrote, "To the job of the little flock ... did the Lord reveal the following doings of olden times, from the prophecy of Enoch."

- On completing the translation, July 2, 1833, Joseph wrote, "We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father."

- D&C 45:60-61: "And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known;
Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come."

- D&C 124:89: "... and with his interest ... publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth."

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that both Joseph Smith and the Lord considered the JST authoritative and revelatory.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Why does that matter? The living prophet has the authority to determine what's scripture. Matthews does NOT. And they determined that JSM and Mos are scripture, the rest of JST, no.

This gives me a good chuckle. You speak as if a committee of apostles reviewed the work in its entirety and selected this as scripture, and that as not scripture. Heh. It just didn't happen that way, and your comments really do reflect ignorance of the process.

The Pearl of Great Price came about almost by accident. It was a collection of several passages collected by Franklin Richards in 1851 to help the English Saints to have some additional studying material in addition to the (then) scriptures. Included in the original Pearl of Great Price were several sections of the D&C (which were later removed for that very reason), and the lyrics to what would become Oh, Say What is Truth. He included the Moses passages because he had access to them and found them valuable ... via their serial publication in the Evening and Morning Star and the Times and Seasons.

Later, much later in fact (1880), the book was accepted into the canon. By that point the RLDS had published their version of the JST (in 1867) and the distrust and suspicion of its accuracy had already arisen. It wasn't until nearly a century later that LDS scholars got to verify the surprisingly accurate 1867 publication. By that time, the copyright issues and delicate relationship I mentioned earlier came into play.

Now you can hypothesize that there was some divine design involved in preventing Richards from incorporating more than he did--and who knows, maybe there was. But to pretend that it was some organized process where certain passages were deemed worthy, and others unworthy, is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

(JST - JSM - Mos): not binding or normative
NIV + NRSV+... : not binding or normative

no obligation exists to follow either

I think we ought to be careful putting bounds on God on what word we think is binding or not. Just because a certain prophetic statement is not leatherbound in canon doesn't mean we get to hold up a hand and say, "Sorry, God. This passage didn't make the cut, so I'm not under obligation. Thanks for playing."

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The KJV is my personal Bible too, but the NIV and NRSV are more doctrinally accurate and congenial to LDS beliefs.

By all means. Just don't place them on the same plane as the prophetically unique Joseph Smith Translation.