First off, lets start with JS and HIS Bible. If you read the Articles of Faith (A of F) number 8, it says,
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
First problem is, The LDS do not fully trust the Bible as being both accurate or the Word of God. Now we read in the Doctrine and Covenants (D and C) Chapter 71 in the heading above that chapter.
SECTION 71
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, December 1, 1831. HC 1: 238–239. The Prophet had continued to translate the Bible with Sidney Rigdon as his scribe until this revelation was received, at which time it was temporarily laid aside so as to enable them to fulfill the instruction given herein. The brethren were to go forth to preach in order to allay the unfriendly feelings that had developed against the Church as a result of the publication of some newspaper articles by Ezra Booth, who had apostatized.
Then we read in D and C chapter 73
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, January 10, 1832. HC 1: 241–242. Since the early part of the preceding December, the Prophet and Sidney had been engaged in preaching, and by this means much was accomplished in diminishing the unfavorable feelings that had arisen against the Church (see heading to Section 71).
1–2, Elders are to continue to preach; 3–6, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are to continue to translate the Bible until it is finished.
1 For verily, thus saith the Lord, it is expedient in me that they should continue preaching the gospel, and in exhortation to the churches in the regions round about, until conference;
2 And then, behold, it shall be made known unto them, by the voice of the conference, their several missions.
3 Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again;
4 And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished.
5 And let this be a pattern unto the elders until further knowledge, even as it is written.
6 Now I give no more unto you at this time. Gird up your loins and be sober. Even so. Amen.
Please remember, both while reading what I write now and when and if you ever talk to the LDS about this, the Heading above the Chapter 73 says, They were to finish the translation. This is very important for the reason of, many LDS have told me and do teach, that JS never finished the Translation. You can go to the LDS fair boards and either talk about the JST and you will have LDS tell you JS never finished or you can look up under my user name (rick b)fairlds and read all of my talks as they arcive everything. The link provide will take you to all of my posts, you can read over the pages and look up the talks on the JST and after you click on them you can read what everyone else said. I talked with LDS on the FairLDS board who told me JS never finished his work of translation.
This is a very serious problem, which I will cover. Lets look at D and C 76:15
15 For while we were doing the work of atranslation, which the Lord had appointed unto usAnd D and C 93:53
53 And, verily I say unto you, that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures, and to obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion. Amen.
Now if you see TV, or book or web ad's for the LDS offering a BoM or even a Bible, they NEVER offer you a JST of the Bible. And when you speak with them and they quote from the Bible, you will notice they almost never quote from the JST of the Bible. I would really have to Ask and I guess I am going to ask, If JS really is a prophet of God, The lds is the True Church and God really did tell JS to translate the Bible, Why do the LDS not use it or pass it out?
I will give what I believe are some reasons why. First, JS is nothing more than a false prophet who came as a wolf in sheep's clothing. But the LDS don't believe this, so hear are some reasons I have heard given by them over the years. When JS was killed in the jail, Brigham Young took over as the next president of the LDS church. Depending on who you talk to or believe for that matter, there was a split in the Church, we had the LDS who followed BY, and the RLDS who followed Joseph Smith's son.
The rlds at the time believed Joseph Smiths son was ment to be the next President of the LDS Church, not BY. Joseph's Wife, Lucy, followed her son. She owned the copy of the JST of the Bible. BY wanted it, but lucy would not give it up. So finally BY dismissed it as flawed. Now the LDS claim the RLDS own the rights to the book.
I have to ask these questions, If the LDS really believe the Church fell into a total aposaty, and the Bible is not accurate, and God clearly told JS to translate the Bible again, As was clearly laid out, why would God allow one group to own the copy rights on His word and theirfore the Church that WAS supposed to have it and use it, see it basicly fall into a some what corrputed state again?
I happen to own a copy of the JST of the Bible, and when you read in the preface of the JST of the Bible, it states, ( "Completion" Possibly not final).
More to come in part two, Rick b
20 comments:
Are you saying that there is only one correct translation of the Bible? If so, which is it? Almost every church out there has their own version.
Is not the Bible, in its present form, was translated from many different sources and by many different people to be ultimately published in its present form by the Catholic church who decided which books were to be considered scripture by debate and common opinion at the time?
The LDS church publishes and uses the JST translation of the Bible. Almost every member has one. I dont understand your statement to the contrary.
Excellent post Rick. There are many, many troublesome things about accepted works from the cult of Mormonism. Doctrine and Covenants 73:4 is a typical example:
"3 Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again;
4And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished."
As you said Joseph Smith never finished the work he was told to finish. Did the god of Mormonism not realize that Joseph Smith would be incapable of finishing the work he was told to? Did he not realize that the demands on his time would be too great, or that "the prophet" would be murdered before this could transpire?
Perhaps that's why he said, "inasmuch as it is practicable." The God of the Bible didn't tell His prophets to do His will in a "practicable" fashion.
I don't know, you might be able to make a stretching example of a prophet being given a practical job to perform, and while there was work for them to finish, they were protected in their sojourn here until it was done.
Joseph Smith's work was certainly not finished as required by the "prophecy." Wonder why that was?
Thanks for the note. I await the next part. David, it may have been fashionable to call Mormonism a cult 20 or 30 years ago, but the religion has grown over the past 200 years to become one of the great American religions that has helped millions of people find happiness and meaning in their lives. Let alone the billions of dollars of financial aid and assistence the church gives away each year.
You may not agree with some of the doctrines preached by the men called to lead this great organization, but to call it a cult? That is quite an extreme and uneducated classification of a truly remarkable church.
I also do not understand the relationship between Joseph not finishing something he claimed to have been called to do, and calling him a false prophet.
How many charges were the early apostles given by Christ that were never finished?
4And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished."
Where do you get the idea that ‘finished’ meant translating the whole book? It could have been that the Lord just wanted Joseph to translate a certain part and that meant finished. It could be that Joseph erred in not finishing the whole translation. Just because Joseph was a Prophet does not mean he was prone to error. He lost part of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. Moses did things he was not suppose to, as a result he was not allowed into the promised land. Jonah did not go to Nineveh as he was told to.
My point is, just because they were told to do something, it not being done the way you understand the scripture to mean does not make the scripture or the person who wrote it false.
GRORC,
You are so right. The works of men-Moses and Jonah-can be left uncompleted or even ignored.
That is why everyone needs to look to Jesus.
Hebrews 12:2 (New King James Version)
2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Not to men. No man without the aid of Grace can accomplish any task or complete any commandment.
Is the real issue about translations of the bible and which one is correct or is it the message found within it?
Please read the introduction page of any Book of Mormon. The end of the first paragraph tells us that the bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
Excelent post Jonathan. The Bible does contain the fulness of the Everlasting Gospel. The Book of Mormon is not meant to convert people to Mormonism. Its only purpose is, as the title page and introduction say, to bring people to a knowlege of the Savior Jesus Christ and to stand as a second witness to the Bible that all men must come unto Him to be saved.
Does the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible restore the "plain and precious" parts of the bible removed according to the Book of Mormon [See 1 Nephi 13:28]?
I only asked because if the introduction page of the Book of Mormon states that the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel, Is statement in reference to the fact that Joseph Smith restored them, so the bible-the Joseph Smith Translation-would again contain this fulness?
Follow up question, Why is the King James Version still widely used within "Mormon" churches, then?
I believe the plain and precious parts being removed that are referred to is about the formation of the Bible. Not an encounter where someone had a Bible and started to delete things.
During the creation of the modern-day Bible, many councils (starting with Nicea) helped form the Bible into what it is today. How can one claim the Bible to be complete and without error when it is constructed from debate and council?
If you look at the JST translation of the Bible, most of it is simple changes. In some parts there are lengthy additions. But Joseph Smith taught, as does the LDS church now, that the King James Version of the Bible contains the fulness of the Gospel for a man to be saved.
The LDS church uses the King James Version of the Bible with references to the JST version. This may be wrong, but I believe that the church does it this way because the KJV of the Bible was most common among the people. The differences between the two versions are not big enough to warrent the church to use a full printing of the JST version.
As a sidenote, Joseph, many times said that the German translation of the Bible was the most accurate copy of the Bible at the time. One can imagine the changes that the book went through when translated from the many languages it was originally writen in. For further insight; research John 1:1 and the 'logos' from which was translated into The Word. There is infinate debate on what the original author meant by logos.
I think it funny an juvenile that you attempt to write your own history and lead people astray with lies. Where does it say that Brigham Young dimissed the JST of the Bible as flawed? Or are you just doing like you do with most of your writtings, jumping to your own conclusions and your own interpretations about the truth? Because that is exactly what they are. The proof I give you that this is what you are doing is the fact that you do not believe in modern day revelation, so obviously God is not telling you these things. So you must just make them up as you go. Or share with us your source of interpretation.
In spite of these commands in LDS scripture the LDS Church never published the Inspired Version of the Bible until 1979. According to LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, the reason it was not published is that "...This inspired revision of the ancient scriptures was never completed by the Prophet" (M.D., p. 383). If that is true, Joseph Smith was a very disobedient Prophet because he was commanded to finish it (D. & C. 73:4) and publish it (D. & C. 124:89)! As previously mentioned, Smith himself claimed he did complete it, but it had not been published at the time of his death in 1844. When he was killed, the manuscript went to his wife who never accepted Brigham Young as the successor to her husband. Her son Joseph III later became the Prophet of the Reorganized LDS Church and published the new translation for the Reorganized LDS Church for the first time in 1867. Many LDS people have used the RLDS edition, but it has never been officially endorsed by the LDS Church because they did not trust the "apostate" Reorganized LDS Church. The ninth printing of the 1944 edition entitles it the Inspired Version The Holy Scriptures. Below that title it says "A New Corrected Edition." On p. 3 of the Preface, we read: "As concerning the manner of translation and correction, it is evident, that from the manuscripts and the testimony of those who were conversant with the facts that it was done by direct revelation from God."
Grorc said...
I believe the plain and precious parts being removed that are referred to is about the formation of the Bible. Not an encounter where someone had a Bible and started to delete things.
Grorc, by saying I BELIEVE, This is your first problem, you simply believe this is the case, yet you cannot support it with hard evidence, so you must say, I Believe. I (rick) never claimed any thing was missing from the Bible, let alone claimed to know what it was or is that is missing.
Since you admit, it is simply your belief as to what these plain and precious things that are missing, would you be willing also to admit, you could be wrong on how you view what could be missing?
I only ask this because, Unless you can provide hard evidence, you can only assume. But then if you could provide evidence to what is missing, the next question would be, why has the LDS Church Not put it back in? I only ask this because, the LDS openly demand evidence from me, so I simply extend the same courtesy to the LDS, And expect evidence. Rick b
Chuck, let me add this.
Brigham young said if [the bible] be translated incorrectly and their is a scholar who can translate it any better than the kinh james translators did it, he is under an obligation to do so. If I understood Greek and Hebrew and I knew the Bible was not translated correctly, I should feel myself bound by the law of justice to translate that which is incorrect but I think it is translated just as correctly as the scholars could could get it Discourses of Brigham Young pg 124
Now Chuck, BY said this well after the death of JS, it was 30 plus years after his death. If BY did not "Correct" the Bible then he must have felt it was correct. So if BY felt the Bible was correct, but the A of F 8 teach it was not correct and God told JS to "correct" the Bible, why did BY not use or endorse the JST? I think it is you that is incorrect in your views, not me. Plus the RLDS openly admit to having the "Rights" to the manuscript. Rick b
Rick: Grorc, by saying I BELIEVE, This is your first problem, you simply believe this is the case, yet you cannot support it with hard evidence, so you must say, I Believe. I (rick) never claimed any thing was missing from the Bible, let alone claimed to know what it was or is that is missing.
If you read the rest of my account you would find the proof and evidence of my belief. Any glance at the development of the Church of Christ after the Apostles were killed will enlighten anyone to how incomplete and fragmented the Bible is in its current state.
Specifically Ecumenical councils called by the Catholic church to decide doctrine and what writings of the Apostles should or should not be included. Beginning with Nicea (which was put together by Constantine, who wasnt even a member of the Church) and all through the ages the uninspired leaders of the Church (Catholic and beyond) have been hacking away at the Plain and Precious truths concerning God, Christ and their plan for mankind. In Nicea and several councils after attempted to define the nature of God and Christ. Half of the church at the time didnt even believe the doctrine of the trinity as it is believed in christianity today. But through maneuvering and manipulation the doctrine was put forth as Church law and henceforth Nicean Christianity is the "correct" form to believe in.
I said "I believe" because I was giving my opinion based from personal study and church doctrine.
Now concerning the point to which you ask why the LDS church did not add back the parts they thought were missing. Well thats the point of the Book of Mormon. It specifically states it in there. And with continuing revelation, it wasnt that important.
Rick, the article of faith which you are referring to states that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This is not specifically aimed at the KJV of the Bible but all of them. Do you have any idea how many translations there are? Shoot, the english version alone has every religion putting their own version out to fit their doctrine. Some of them outright eliminating chapters and versus to fit their point. A good example of this is the Jehovah's Witnesses.
And Brigham Young was referring to the Bible containing everything a person needs to obtain salvation. With the Book of Mormon as a companion, he as does the LDS church, do not feel the need to change it. It is fine the way it is.
Besides, the use of modern revelation makes it so we do not have to go on endless debate because people are interpreting everything their own way. Quite refreshing actually.
Rick, you always seem to skirt the question. So I will keep this post simple. Where does it say that Brigham Young dimissed the JST of the Bible as flawed as in your blog you claim that he did?
Chuck, I did not "Skirt the Issue. No matter how much evidence I provide you will never be happy. I look at it like this, Some evidence I provide is from your prophets, presidents books Etc, It shows Contrdictions which you guys either never reply to or simply claim I dont understand. But then you never fully answer them anyway.
Their also is the matter of a saying that goes, Actions speak louder than words. I posted doctumented matirels showing BY claims the Bible is good enough and is the Word of God. All this was said by the Prophet after the death of JS and after the JST was "supposdly finished".
You say I did not provide enough evidence, well please explain then why BY does not endorse, use, mention or any other choice of description you choose. BY never appers to use the JST of the Bible, Why? If it really is both inspired and from God and better than or at least a correction of the Bible, why does BY not use it?
Here is something else to read over and think about, Why does the Prophet JS wife not trust the next prophet?
Roger D. Launius, Joseph Smith III Pragmatic Prophet, p.38
As part of the controversy over the estate, Emma Smith angered Brigham Young over the matter of the control of her husband's papers. Smith had a large collection of papers at the time of his death, but they were scattered about Nauvoo in various offices and church officials' homes. Emma Smith gathered up some of them before Young returned to Nauvoo and tried to obtain others but was unsuccessful. After his arrival in Nauvoo in August, Young learned of her action and tried to regain those papers she had been successful in collecting. Claiming the papers were church property, Young sent messengers to the Smith home to retrieve these manuscripts, but Emma refused to part with them. She claimed she would never give them up. Fortunately, Young was not too concerned about most of the papers Emma had, since the items of greatest importance to the church--the bulk of the prophet's official correspondence, his autobiography, the official record and minute books, and ledgers of church business transactions--were still in the hands of church members loyal to the new administration. The document that Young wanted to obtain most, however, was a manuscript of part of the Bible, known to the Saints as the New Translation, which was an "inspired revision" of the King James version that had been prepared by Joseph Smith and his assistants. Emma refused to let the church take the manuscript because, as she later explained to her son, "she felt the grave responsibility of safely keeping it until such time as the Lord would permit or direct its publication."
To assure the New Translation's safety, Emma hid it in a trunk for which she had a false bottom built. Apparently, only one person [p.39] outside the Smith family was allowed to use this document between 1844 and 1846, for fear that Young would somehow confiscate the manuscript. Emma did permit John M. Bernhisel, her good friend for many years, to borrow and copy a portion of the manuscript, but even with him she was cautious. She distrusted Brigham Young so greatly by this time that she always maintained her guard. She made a telling indictment of Young and his lieutenants concerning this incident in 1867. "It is true that every L.D.S. cannot be trusted to copy them [the manuscript pages], and I did not trust many of them with the reading of them," she wrote to her son, "and I am of the opinion that if I had trusted all that wished the privilege you would not have them in your possession now."
The History of the LDS church after the death of Joseph is a very interesting one. I do not know why Emma did not follow the rest of the saints. If you ask 5 different members of the church you will get five different answers.
For those that deride her for her decision, she was called an elect lady by the Lord and that Joseph found chose her for a wife says a lot about her as a person. You cannot deride her without defaming the prophet.
All I can say is that I know that the Lord had called BY to be the next prophet. This leads to another comment. The LDS church is a church of modern day revelation. We are thankful for the past scriptures and revelations to members of the church at those times. But none of them amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the present day revelations and direction comming from the living oracles at this time.
I think this is one of the reasons many LDS members are so bewildered or hesitant to argue with people that point to the bible and say, "look here" it says right here what you should believe. Where we read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and any other religous book for profit, learning and greater understanding of the Lord's works for us, those works are revelations and direction for past people and civilizations.
Hi grorc,
Sorry for the late response. There are several things that classify a cult. Mormonism fulfills them all. It isn't extreme, and neither is it an example of a lack of proper education or the application of it to refer to Mormonism as a cult. It is simply a fact.
Mormonism has distinctive doctrines which separate it from true Biblical Christianity. It twists Scripture, perverts the Atonement of Christ and His identity and the nature of the gospel itself. One needn't have a degree to see it.
Incidentally, what has size got to do with whether or not this "great organizaton" is a cult or not?
The Bible tells us that one day there will be a world-wide church. That "great organization" will be the largest church that has ever been on earth, and it will be totally false.
Ummmm.......If you can list a chirge that an Apostle (of the Bible) did not finish before God took him grorc, why don't you go ahead and do so?
My point was that God preserves His prophets until their work is finished. Only then were they allowed to die, or as in Eliajahs case, taken.
Joseph Smith claimed to get prophecy from God to tell him to finish the JST. He didn't do that and didn't have any protection for that task because (as his many failed prophecies clearly demosnstrate) he wasn't a true prophet of God.
Post a Comment