I learned something new the other day that I thought was really interesting… something I never knew as a member of the LDS church. I had always known that Joseph Smith retranslated portions of the Bible, claiming to restore ‘plain and precious’ things that had been removed over the centuries. What I didn’t know is that he actually retranslated the entire Bible. This immediately made me wonder why the LDS church doesn’t use the Joseph Smith version of the Bible as their Bible, but instead uses only limited selections from it. Even more interesting is that the Community of Christ (the new name for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) does use the Joseph Smith version as their Bible. They call it the Inspired Version of the Bible.
This begs the obvious question, why does the mainstream LDS church only accept pieces of Joseph Smith’s retranslation as canonical, while rejecting other portions? Was he only operating as a true prophet of God at limited times while retranslating the Bible, but got things wrong at other times? It seems to me that there really is no other explanation. Apparently the LDS church must feel that sometimes he was right but sometimes he was wrong. And who is to say which parts he got wrong? Well, other prophets… who could also have been equally right or wrong on their judgments.
I looked for an LDS apologist response to this dilemma, but have not found anyone really speaking directly to this issue. There are a few that sidestep the issue and claim that the original Inspired Version was tampered with and is no longer reliable, but cannot seem to show any basis for that assumption. In fact, LDS scholars have worked alongside Community of Christ scholars and have come to the conclusion that it is in fact remarkably intact.
Either Joseph Smith was the true prophet of God, making his complete translation the most correct on the earth and the LDS church has just chosen to ignore it, or the LDS church realizes that Joseph Smith was not inspired in every piece of claimed scripture but chooses not to share that knowledge with its membership.
To me, this amounts to the admission by the mainstream LDS church that Joseph Smith mistranslated portions of the Bible while claiming to be directly inspired by God.
To me, this is yet another piece of evidence pointing to Joseph Smith as a gifted and imaginative religious thinker rather than an inspired transcriptionist of God, and evidence that the leadership of the LDS church knows this to be the case.
Interested in knowing more? Here is a good jumping-off point to get you started…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible
July 3, 2008 at 11:16 pm |
I never knew that Joseph completed his translation. I grew up mormon, and was always told that Joseph’s translation was incomplete.
Interesting stuff.
I’m recovering from mormonism now.
July 4, 2008 at 12:25 am |
Yeah, I had always heard it was incomplete, too. In my study, I’ve seen that that is still the most common claim for why it is not used. But what is interesting is the claim isn’t because Joseph didn’t get all of the book ‘translated’. It is actually consdiered incomplete by LDS scholars because it was in a constant state of revision after revision… in other words, he was never really done making changes to his changes. Seems a little odd for something supposedly given by direct revelation from the Lord.
July 5, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
You raise an interesting topic here, however it is not something new or shocking nor unanswered by the church. I would encourage you to include getting information directly from the source when considering any LDS question rather than wait on apologists, or rely on the ever-changing and unreliable “gospel of WIKI “. Taking a moment to go to lds.org and using their “search” bar is harmless & painless & it shows good form in using a fair journalistic research approach. The search bar will provide you with endless reading material and you will also be able to find the “official” answers as you are weighing any mormon matters.
Therefore, if you put “Joseph Smith Inspired Version Bible” into the search on lds.org, you will find a listing of 198 boolean results. You will see that your questions have been asked and answered previously. The #6 is a Q & A published in the New Era April 1977 entitled: “Why don’t we use the Inspired Version of the Bible in the Church? Would it be helpful to me to read it?”
You will enjoy reading this acticle in its entirety – however here are a couple of excerpts: “In answer to the first question, I would say that to some extent we do use Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible (or, as he called it, the New Translation). For example, the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract from the Prophet’s translation of the book of Genesis. Also Joseph Smith 1 in the Pearl of Great Price is an extract of the new translation of Matthew, chapter 24. So anytime we use these materials in the Pearl of Great Price, we are using the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. … Perhaps the principal reason why the Church has not published or officially adopted the new translation is that the Prophet Joseph Smith was unable to attend to an authorized publication of it before his death…Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had neither the original manuscripts [Josephs' widow Emma refused to part with them to the church leadership] nor the copyright [owned by the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS)], it would have been quite difficult, if not impossible, for the Church to publish the translation, even if it had wanted to…Because the translation was published by the RLDS church, some questions have existed as to whether it had been published accurately. However, research in the past few years with the original manuscripts has indicated that the Inspired Version of the Bible, published by the RLDS church, is an accurate representation of the sense of the original manuscripts prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes. Furthermore, it seems to be increasing in use and acceptance in our church today…[The LDS Church] certainly permit members to use the translation in writing and in personal study…
***Of special note, is that this answer was given in 1977 before the new LDS edition of the Bible was announced in 1979! The new version subsequently became widely available to church members in the 80s. One needs to remember that Joseph Smith used a KJV to receive his inspired clarifications of text. He did not write an entirely new bible version! Thus, most of the text in the Inspired Version remains the same as a KJV, and the major significant revelations have always been a part of our cannon. The new LDS edition contains all of the hundreds of doctrinally significant passages from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) in the footnotes and reference section, making this edition of the Holy Bible perhaps even more useful than just a straight Inspiried Version, as one can study the original KJV along with the JST! This edition of the bible also is a real jewel, as it includes brilliant maps, expanded Bible dictionary, cross references to all other LDS books of scripture, and other very cool features making study and research of this amazing holy text ever more user friendly, doctrinally rich and helpful.
Both the article “Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible”
By Lavina Fielding Anderson (1979), and Robert J. Matthews article entitled “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible “Translation” – (both on the lds.org boolean) give an indepth historical account of the JST and also point out the great effort Present Church leaders have expended to make the translation available to the members. Church members are certainly welcome to own a copy of the Inspired Version to study and enjoy! One finds that the only really significant difference today between the two publications is the missing cross references, maps, and fun stuff etc. that the LDS version provides.
I would attach a link to each of these articles above, however fear that your spam-bot will immediately dump my reply. Therefore, I invite you to look these articles up by using the quick search at lds.org. You are also welcome to shoot me a quick email and I will be happy to send you the links. As we formulate a conclusion on any subject it is wise to remember the scientific method used for any research, which states that any conclusion we may have today is based upon the current knowledge and understanding of that particular subject at this moment in time, and therefore is open to change as further research becomes available. Thus, I hope that as a seeker of truth you are staying open and willing to modification of your conclusions. :)
July 5, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
Thanks for the comments, Mormonsoprano. I had already read the 1977 Ensign article prior to posting this particular blog entry. Two things still stand out as troublesome, though. The first is that the Inspired Version, in its entirety, is still not considered LDS canon which, at least to me, implies that even the LDS church does not consider all of Joseph Smith’s purported divinely inspired scripture as acceptable. The second is that the copyright for the Inspired Version expired some time ago, and yet the LDS church has still not made this version widely available to its membership, let alone even common knowledge of its existence. Why are LDS church members so quick to point to historic LDS documents (such as the Ensign article of over 40 years ago you mentioned) to support their cause, but typically bury their heads in the sand concerning things like the Journal of Discourses? An article 40 years ago in the Ensign hardly equates to a diligent effort by LDS church leaders to provide the whole truth to their membership today.
Also, the argument that to truly find truth one must go to the source doesn’t hold water. Would I go to the Ford motor company for unbiased information about the reliability of a Ford Focus? Or would I be better off looking into what Consumer Reports has researched? I study a lot of LDS material and sources, but do not trust them implicitly any more than I trust outwardly anti-LDS sources. The truth always seems to be somewhere in between. A true seeker of truth considers all sides and follows where the evidence leads. I have to say that, in this case, the evidence points to a mainstream rejection of what was purported to be divinely inspired scripture of the founding prophet of the LDS church. What would be the benefit of being able to study the KJV alongside the JST if the JST was in fact the correctly restored version of the word of God? It just doesn’t add up.
June 28, 2009 at 6:14 am |
Several times you mention “purported divinely inspired scripture” when we’re talking about a bunch of notes in the margins of Joseph’s bible. Certainly not a urim and thumim experience as with the Book of Mormon; rather, an ongoing effort to determine where errors existed and how they might be properly addressed. From the Wikipedia article you cite, it’s clear that “translation” is the wrong word altogether (yet you use it liberally throughout your blog); rather, it was Joseph’s personal notations and modifications to try to reconcile what he saw as biblical inaccuracies.
Just because Bruce McConkie waxed eloquent about how much he loved Joseph’s version doesn’t mean that Joseph himself said his comments should be gathered into a compendium to replace the KJV as the official LDS version of the bible. And you can’t say his work on this project was wasted, either; easily half of the sections in Doctrine and Covenants came as a direct result of Joseph’s work on specific parts of the bible.
True, he was preparing to publish the results, but in what form, exactly? We’ll never know. Maybe he intended his new “translation” to replace the KJV, or maybe it was meant to be more of a commentary? What we do know is that he was still working on it as late as a month before he died. So for you to suggest that the LDS church secretly thinks Joseph “was not inspired in every piece of claimed scripture” is patently unfair, and dishonest. Or are you saying that if I believe Joseph to be a prophet, then I have to accept every comment and notation he wrote (and sometimes crossed out and rewrote) in the margins of his scriptures as infallible and divinely inspired? Spare me!
Finally, your Ford Motor Company analogy is erroneous. Your blog isn’t questioning the RELIABILITY of the Joseph Smith version of the bible; rather, it questions the approach of the LDS church toward that version. And, it sounds like you’re suggesting that people who want to know about something like the bible should not trust it implicitly, but should instead read anti-bible books alongside it, hoping that ultimately the truth will “be somewhere in between?” Is that really what you want to say? Or are you a little confused about how one finds truth?
Anyway, I appreciate your respectful approach to Mormonism, unlike that of many so-called Christians whose methods are reprehensible. Yet we Mormons shouldn’t feel threatened or offended by efforts from good people like you to “convert” us to your paradigms; after all, we’ve got 50,000 young men and women around the world trying to do exactly the same thing to all of you, only in reverse, right?
So if I respond every now and then to a blog like this one, it’s not in a spirit of meanness; I only want to keep you on your toes, to make sure you stick to your claims of being respectful, unbiased and a seeker of truth. Nothing more offensive than an ex-mo who knowingly distorts or exaggerates Mormon beliefs to try to make us look unreasonable or stupid.
All of this notwithstanding, I watched “Fireproof” the other day and thoroughly enjoyed it. Have you seen it? My immediate thought was that the divide between mainstream Christians and Mormons is much smaller than most of us make it out to be. We truly have so much in common. Except for the fact that you think we’re all going to hell, and we essentially think the same of you . . . (wink, wink)
June 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
Perry,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You’ve covered a lot of ground here, so I’ll attempt to address your comments in the order you’ve posed them.
First of all, either Joseph Smith’s revisions to the Bible are divinely inspired or they are not. It seems too convenient an argument to accept those parts that one wants to accept as divinely inspired and dismiss others as being something akin to rambling notes in the margins. It seems that you are trying to discount some of his changes because of the way in which he received the text. Couldn’t one also say that sections of the Book of Mormon were just Joseph’s own contemplative thoughts as he gazed thoughtfully upon his seer stone? From the same Wikipedia article we’ve both used as a source, LDS scholar Robert J. Matthews lists even those parts that might be considered to be Joseph’s commentary as “inspired commentary”. In my vocabulary, inspired implies divine inspiration. Also, for the record, I was certainly not the first to refer to the JST by using the word “translation.” For the record, JST stands for “Joseph Smith Translation”, a title certainly not coined by me. I agree that “translation” is not the best word for how he made his revisions. But to suggest that his work on the Bible text was just his personal notations while trying to reconcile biblical inaccuracies disagrees with everything Joseph ever said about the project. He claimed divine inspiration for his changes and prophets who followed him echoed that claim. In at least one case of “restored scripture”, Joseph added entire chapters to the Bible to further explain Melchezidek and an entire LDS Priesthood was based upon it. That goes FAR beyond personal commentary.
I’m sure Joseph did indeed write many notes and much commentary that is not considered divinely inspired, even by the LDS. The problem I have in this case is that there is scripture, said to have been divinely inspired by Joseph himself, that is not accepted by the LDS church. Maybe “not accepted” isn’t the right term. At the very least, though, the fact that an entire version of Joseph Smith’s Bible exists and the VAST majority of the LDS people have no idea about it is enough to cause one to question. Actually, I think the larger problem for the LDS church is not in what Joseph claimed to have restored to the Bible, but in those things that he left unchanged that are not in harmony with LDS teachings. Take Galatians, for example. A major rewrite would have been required to bring it in line with LDS theology, and yet Joseph left it virtually untouched. And please don’t claim that it’s because his translation was unfinished. It was unfinished, not because he died before getting to all of it, but because he kept going over it and over it, time and time again, constantly re-writing and re-correcting his own “inspired” revisions.
If you are trying to say that my Ford Motor Company analogy (which is a response to another comment, not part of the main post, which is why it may seem to address a slightly different topic) is lacking, then I would agree with you. By the very nature of analogies, they are imperfect. They are never meant to be a perfect explanation of a thing. They are only used to try to bring some point into better clarity. With that understanding in mind, I think it still holds up in showing the point I was attempting to make.
It may come as a surprise to you that I often read “anti-Bible” books, websites, and writings. Most of the really grounded Christians I have met do the same. If truth is truth, it will stand up to any barrage of attack. I can list the supposed problems and contradictions in the Bible as well as nearly any skeptic. I think if you’ll re-read my response to the comment, you will see that I was talking about the truth “being somewhere in between” specifically in regard to pro-LDS vs. anti-LDS debate. God’s truth is the truth, whether found in the middle, to the left, or to the right. Studying both sides of an issue should only reinforce the truth, regardless of where it stands. If anyone is confused about how one finds the truth, it seems to me that it would be those who refuse to study all sides of an issue while closing their minds to the possibility that they could possibly have been mistaken or mislead.
Thank you for being one of a very limited number of members of the LDS church I know who seem to understand what I’m trying to do, and that it really is no different than the “every member a missionary” approach that the LDS church espouses. I have “good news” that I’m desperately trying to share with those whom I love, whom I want to see find a relationship with God, and whom I most identify with.
June 29, 2009 at 9:44 pm |
Excellent comments, Brad. Very fair and reasonable. Thanks for taking the time.
FWIW, when you say Joseph’s biblical notations were either divinely inspired or not, I say they were not, at least for the most part. The stuff that made it into LDS scripture – Matthew 24, Moses, etc. – absolutely was inspired, and completed. The rest of it? Perhaps nothing more than the well-intentioned efforts of an enlightened man who was trying to make sense of a very complex book. Even the “JST” (and you’re right – you didn’t coin the use of “translation”) footnotes in modern LDS scriptures, of which there are apparently 600 (I’ve never counted) are not, as far as I’m concerned, more inspired or scriptural than the actual KJV text. They’re just an alternative for us to consider in Sunday School discussions, so we can know where Joseph’s mind was on the topic.
So the fact that we LDS don’t include the entire JST in our body of scriptures doesn’t keep me awake at night. To me, it’s just no big deal. But I can see why it’s unsettling to you.
As for LDS theology not agreeing with Galatians . . . what? I love that book. What are you talking about? Do you think we don’t believe in grace or something? Or that we think our works justify us? Because . . . WE DON’T! Surely you understand us better than that?
Anyway – thanks again for responding.