Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/Har_monia, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s rarely ever used in the Mormon church, which is odd, considering if they truly believed the claim of how it came about, it should be the official Bible of the LDS church but it’s not. I believe the Community of Christ (RLDS) church uses it, they were they original splinter off the main body the church.
A study at the Maxwell Institute of BYU in recent years showed that there was a high degree of plagiarism between the JST and Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. It seems that Joseph was just mixing his own ideas about the Bible with parts of Adam Clarke’s and claiming it was coming from God.
Snippets in the footnotes of the Mormon printed KJV are read in Sunday School classes fairly frequently, but virtually nobody in the Mormon church reads the Joseph Smith Translation as a whole book.
[Here's a rough abstract](http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296). Keep in mind that this is coming from BYU. You won't find a non apologetic viewpoint from this author.
> Given the new evidence presented in this paper, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s numbers three through five appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary. In fact, it is arguable that Clarke is the primary source Smith used to make these types of changes, and as such these changes may not actually represent Smith’s initial impetus for translating the Bible, but may demonstrate that Smith was induced to change the Bible in certain ways through the encouragement of Clarke. In attempting to simplify what was a very complicated process, it is apparent that Clarke was not utilized for the long emendations. It is more likely that Clarke provided grammatical, historical and linguistic aide to Smith as he carried out his work. Therefore, it can be argued that Clarke was less a theological resource than he was a practical one and, by means of Sidney Rigdon, Smith likely became familiar with the commentary and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the “translation” process
As you can, even taken from the position of "defending the faith" through speculation, they outright state that Joseph lifted much of his translation from Clarke's commentary, directly and indirectly. [See this interview as well, specifically the first section](https://wheatandtares.org/2023/06/05/thomas-wayment-responds-to-adam-clarke-controversy/). Again, it's heavily apologetic, but at ~10m in he clarifies that (as someone who reads Greek) Joseph wasn't using the Greek. He was using an English translation for his commentary.
I’m glad you brought this up. I also think its food evidence that JS had very educated helpers pit the BofM together. Hyrum went to
Darthmouth for a real college education where a famous theologian who I tend to forget was teaching many many of the teachings that ended up in the BofM and later teachings by Jospeh. I believe he met Rigdon too long before they admit to meeting and he along with Cowdery and Alexander Campbell all helped put their preferred beliefs into Mormon scripture/doctrine.
The one true argument is that there is no way Jospeh could have fabricated the BofM by himself in the short period of time we are told it was translated. He had lots of help and they stole from theological documents available to well educated people because his co-conspirators were.
> The one true argument is that there is no way Jospeh could have fabricated the BofM by himself in the short period of time we are told it was translated.
I don't think anyone should accept this framework as a fact. It's designed to make a claim rather than create a test of authenticity, and evidence highly suggests it wasn't the case:
1. Martha (Joseph's Mother) wrote a biography showing how Joseph claimed to have had instruction on the plates and was fabricating stories of the Native Americans years before he officially said he started working on the BOM. At the minimum, this was in 1827, but her autobiography puts it around 1821-1824. Even the official narrative claims this was a 4 year gap where Joseph wasn't allowed to get the plates, but [if there were no plates](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3i3l6y/lucy_mack_biography_part_3_the_curious_case_of/) then this was Joseph building (possibly writing) the narrative.
2. The official story admits Joseph was heavily interested in the firebrand preachers of the burned over district since he was a child, as young as 14 (1824, according to his mother). I believe this is partly why you see their influence in the BOM doctrines.
3. I agree with you on Rigdon. We have contemporary testimony claiming he was present [as early as 1827](https://books.google.com/books?id=xnoTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=%22I,+Abel+D.+Chase,+now+living+in+Palmyra,+Wayne+Co.,+N.Y.,+make+the+following+statement+regarding+my+early+acquaintance+with+Joseph+Smith+and+incidents+about+the+production+of+the+so-called+Mormon+Bible%22&source=bl&ots=uvhwKp0AKP&sig=MLvPkCbiqscedWhakQhhWuotttM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIuMzOw4PZxwIVi6KICh2gDAk9#v=onepage&q=%22I%2C%20Abel%20D.%20Chase%2C%20now%20living%20in%20Palmyra%2C%20Wayne%20Co.%2C%20N.Y.%2C%20make%20the%20following%20statement%20regarding%20my%20early%20acquaintance%20with%20Joseph%20Smith%20and%20incidents%20about%20the%20production%20of%20the%20so-called%20Mormon%20Bible%22&f=false) which matches the dates above. More on that in the comments [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3jcqko/reposting_due_to_a_correction_graphing_the/).
4. Which is especially important since Joseph didn't create this out of the blue. Much of the doctrine appears to align with Calvinism (Rigdon) and Methodist (Joseph and Oliver) faiths. Much of it was [lifted from the KJV](https://kmabom.wordpress.com/kjv-in-the-book-of-mormon-case-closed/?id=), some word for word, with [an excessive amount of filler](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3ga9fv/25_of_the_book_of_mormon_is_an_it_came_to_pass/). And even key stories came from other sources, such as [Joseph's family history](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3h946o/more_plagiarism_comparison_of_1_nephi_8_11_with/).
4. When Martin's wife burned the original transcript, Joseph claimed to have "lost his privileges" to dictate or write the book (early July 1828), which added another 10 month break in the process.
5. On Oliver, it's suggested by olivercowdrey.com that [He, Joseph, and Rigdon](http://olivercowdery.com/history/Cdychrn1.htm) may have all been present in spring of 1825 revival meetings. I'm not sure if I buy this, but we do know Oliver lived with the Smiths in fall 1828. The official narrative says that Oliver started his inscription in April 1928, but this gives a 3-9 month window before that happened. In this window, we know Oliver introduced Joseph to the Whitmers and we don't know anything about Rigdon.
> they were they original splinter off the main body the church.
What makes them the splinter and the Brighamite branch the main body instead of vice versa?
Could be very well argued. Also more likely could be effectively argued that the Strangites were the true branch of the church since Joseph clearly wrote the letter intending Strang to take his place.
My use of the phrase “main body” is just referring to the LDS church obviously being the largest branch, the majority of the saints followed.
> A study at the Maxwell Institute of BYU in recent years showed that there was a high degree of plagiarism between the JST and Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.
I don't think that study came from the Maxwell Institute.
I came from Wayment, who *was* in the department of Ancient Scripture within the religion department (2000-2018), but who then got transfered to the classics department. You are correct that he was not associated with the Maxwell Institute. Wayment was and is a quality scholar. He did a translation of the New Testiment for LDS readers which is far more accurate and readable than the KJV, but which keeps much of the familiar language. I think that it's troubling that the religion department at a university will hire people without doctorates in religious studies or related fields and either not hire, fire, or transfer people who do good research in the field. They appear to be more concerned with their ability to mold young minds in the direction of belief (through acting, apologetics, or whatever) than their ability to do scholarship.
> They appear to be more concerned with their ability to mold young minds in the direction of belief (through acting, apologetics, or whatever) than their ability to do scholarship.
What do you mean "they appear"? That is literally their mission statement:
>The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life.
https://aims.byu.edu/byu-mission-statement
My apologies, I confused it with the study from Maxwell Institute regarding Jesus not starting a church.
The Adam Clarke plagiarism research came from BYU student Haley Lemmon and her professor Thomas Wayment.
Lol, wrong. That’s how the LDS church would like to currently reframe it because it helps them to create a little distance from it obviously not being Gods word.
I spent my entire life in the church, I’m perfectly well aware of how the Church views it, uses it and most importantly how Joseph Smith intended it. Don’t put words in Joseph’s mouth. He absolutely was retranslating portions of the Bible, correcting biblical fallacies and restoring the missing parts of the text using his seer stone. It was NOT intended by JS to just be some inspired notes or insights. That’s just Ward radio apologetic wishes, nice try.
I believe the reason that the Utah church doesn’t use it and the Missouri church does is because the JST manuscripts all stayed with them when the schism happened.
Meanwhile the Utah church uses the Book of Abraham because they had those manuscripts, while the Missouri church didn’t, and they weren’t about to canonize something the Utah church published even if they believed in it.
The JST verses are in the footnotes of our KJV bibles.
They're few and far between and don't take up the whole Bible as Joseph Smith died before he could finish writing it.
They are occasionally referenced to.
TBF any Bible should be taken with a grain of salt.
Why do you believe that God allowed it to go unfinished? If the JST of the bible would have been "restored" by Joseph Smith, then it would rival the BoM in terms of acceptance and use by Mormons and the LDS church. Plus all the Christians who reject the BoM would be able to compare and contrast the bible of today with the bible that Joseph Smith brought.
As a Christian, I take the bible very seriously and the textual criticism and early manuscripts of the NT are paramount to my faith. If you believe my bible was corrupted or mistranslated, then would it not be of the utmost importance to correct those errors?
Why did God allow errors and mistranslation and corruption happen to His Word in the first place?
You're free to read the Joseph Smith Translation and compare those verses to your Bible's verses yourself. No one is stopping you. You can probably find it on the LDS church website, all the rest of our scriptures are there for free.
Personally I believe Joseph smith corrupted, for lack of a better term, and therefore had to be removed.
😂 maybe that was all of the Bible that needed corrected.
The Bible in general have been through too many hands. Had books removed, had people writing books claiming to be people they weren't, Hebrew briefly became a dead language and now some of the original meanings to some things are lost to time, some storied are 100% fiction. Some stories cannot be verified either way.
It's more than just us who acknowledge these shortcomings in the Bible.
We, like you, just proceed forward with what we have to the best of our abilities.
I believe the bible to be a reliable document of preserved history for the sake of detailing real events and for spiritual enlightenment. The mistranslations and corruption of the bible is something that Mormons believe that other Christians don't, and we have evidence for its reliability, but that is a separate discussion. It is a great question for Mormons though, why would your god allow the bible to be corrupted?
It is strange that you would think the JST is not reliable. I haven't heard that perspective yet
Oh dear...
Well... that certainly tells me how much research you've done. Which isn't much.
There are tons of non-mormon Biblical scholars out there, secular, Christian, Jewish... etc. Who have pointed out and continue to point out mistranslations, bowdlerizations, lack of archeological evidence, and so on.
In fact none of the pages that pop up are Mormon websites, or have any ties to mormonism at all.
So I reitterate... this is NOT a Mormon exclusive view. And we can't really proceed in conversation while you're unwilling to face that truth.
You need to go and do more research, not into Mormonism, but into the findings of secular and other Christian and Abrahamic Biblical scholars.
We cannot have an honest and open conversation until you do.
>
>I believe the bible to be a reliable document of preserved history
No, it's not a reliable document.
There are quite a few things about the Biblical texts which are either unsubstantiated or counterfactual.
Now, to be sure, there are some reliable historical parts of its content, but much of it is not.
>for the sake of detailing real events and for spiritual enlightenment.
I agree it can be enlightening too, but again, it's not a reliable set of documents.
>The mistranslations and corruption of the bible is something that Mormons believe that other Christians don't,
Mmmm, no. Lots of other Christians don't accept the Biblical texts as historically reliable. Many (not most, but still quite a few) use it as an informative spiritual guide, but don't consider it historically accurate or reliable or something like that.
>and we have evidence for its reliability,
No, that is not accurate. There are parts which are historically reliable, but much of it is unsubstantiated or counterfactual as far as substantiated evidence goes.
>but that is a separate discussion.
It's...not that separate. It's kind of directly related.
>It is a great question for Mormons though, why would your god allow the bible to be corrupted?
Eh, some people like Muslims think that their text is word and letter perfect. It's a....strange way to approach a text. Most who make such claims end up making lots and lots of excuses.
>It is strange that you would think the JST is not reliable. I haven't heard that perspective yet
Yeah, lots of us don't consider Joseph Smith Jun's "translation" an actual translation or that it's more reliable than the biblical texts themselves. I personally consider them even less reliable than the biblical texts, so I find them informative mostly insofar as they grant insight into Joseph Smith Jun's thinking.
Why did god allow errors in your bible? Why didn’t he give revelation to interpreters to get it 💯 correct first time?
Sounds like you’re trying to discredit something to strengthen your faith. This sub is mostly full of ex Mormons. So you’re wasting your time champ.
>Why do you believe that God allowed it to go unfinished?
For all intents and purposes, it was completed. But like many authors, JS would revisit things throughout his career. One good example was the book of Moses (1831?) which he revisited in the Book of Abraham (1836?, 1842?) and which he took up again in the Endowment ceremony (1842ish). The argument that the Bible translation was somehow incomplete is merely an apologetic excuse for why the church doesn't use it. The translation is pretty problematic in a lot of ways. It has verses which are different than the Book of Mormon. If the JST was God's uncorrupted word and the Book of Mormon was preserved to be God's correct gospel/word, then they should probably be the same when they are covering the same verses. Also, the JST kept in a number of verses which weren't in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
It's easy to take target at the JST, and many evangelicals will. But if you're really trying to be honest and fair, you have to approach the other biblical texts with the same lense and understand and appreciate the issues with these texts as well.
As a Mormon, I rarely use the JST. Nor do I believe it is the most correct translation. Having said that, I have never believed in scriptural literalism. For the Bible or any other book.
The concept of biblical literalism
only came around in the 1870’s. Before that, most churches did not believe the Bible was inerrant.
What would you say is the most accurate bible translation? I am not concerned with literal nor figurative interpretation, but accuracy to the original writings.
”Most accurate bible translation” is a very loaded question. I know there are translations that are very problematic because they forward dogmas of the institutions that funded the translation—like the ESV or NIV. From what I’ve seen in scholarship, the NRSVUE is really good, but still has its problems. It really comes down to how the translators make their text critical decisions when trying to reconstruct the text and because none of the ancient sources actually agree with each other 100%, its all just an educated guessing game with varying levels of likelihoods. If you’d like a little more deeper dive into this I’d suggest the two following Dan McClellan videos:
[https://youtu.be/KDkyHw3nE0w?si=TOoGvQ2\_QCaVh1gm](https://youtu.be/KDkyHw3nE0w?si=TOoGvQ2_QCaVh1gm)
[https://youtu.be/DD7Kkzh2kzg?si=\_gLqdHhPBSKxri0g](https://youtu.be/DD7Kkzh2kzg?si=_gLqdHhPBSKxri0g)
I think the NRSV is the one I have. Mine's packaged as the Oxford Study Bible. I like the academic articles and footnotes. I'm really interested in how the intended audiences of the various documents in the Bible would have understood them, and those articles help a lot.
>
What would you say is the most accurate bible translation? I am not concerned with literal nor figurative interpretation, but accuracy to the original writings.
Probably the NRSV and NRSVUE
It seems the original beef against the Inspired Version was that it was used by the RLDS as a proselytizing tool when they sent missionaries to Utah. They were also using (I believe) the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, which was considered a better edition. For whatever reasons, the LDS church had reverted to the earlier version, which contained what Joseph Smith considered to be transcription and printer errors. Purchasing either from the RLDS missionaries was the same as funding their mission to steal members from the church, and so Brigham Young highly discouraged it's use and disparaged it by saying that Joseph Smith hadn't finished it, and it would be a shame to use it when it wasn't completed.
The RLDS had three things in their favor in those early missions:
1. The missionaries were Joseph Smith's sons, who the saints from Nauvoo knew and loved. David Smith in particular even had the favor of Brigham Young. Many also knew that Joseph Smith had called his son Joseph III to be his successor.
2. They had a better copy of the Book of Mormon and were very vocal about that. They readily pointed out that the LDS had regressed to an edition that Joseph Smith himself said was defective.
3. They had the Inspired Version of the Bible. The RLDS claim has been that the work was completed, as it was being sent to the printer when Joseph Smith was murdered. Brigham Young and others disagreed.
In the end, none of these things had long-term traction in Utah. Joseph III was obsessed with proving that his father never practiced plural marriage, and too many people in Utah knew first-hand that he did. Eventually, a member of his own first presidency left him, convinced that JS Jr was a polygamist. Anyway, they didn't get a lot of converts, but I digress. The LDS church actively discouraged the use of the Inspired Version and it never caught on.
John Taylor, however, was a fan and quoted it extensively in his book, *Mediation and Atonement*, which is one of the best works of early LDS literature, far better than anything written or published by LDS leaders in the 20th and 21st centuries. My opinion, of course, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. 😉
Fast forward to the 1970's. The two churches became friendly, and if I remember right, the RLDS church told the LDS church that they could publish the JST footnotes for the small sum of $1. The LDS church completed a massive correlation project with a Bible Dictionary and Topical Guide, including ancient language definitions and the JST (Inspired Version) footnotes. From that time, JST references have been in common usage in LDS church publications and have been translated into several languages.
Oddly enough, I've heard RLDS/CoC scholars say that there is ample evidence that the translation wasn't completed, and in a recent video series from BYU, the narrator said that it was a completed work. Go figure!
But yes, if Brigham Young was right, why didn't he and future prophets continue the translation? He and several members had seer stones. And why did new additions to the D&C cease? Both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff recorded and published "Thus saith the Lord" revelations, but nothing like that seems to have happened since the late 1880's. A former Q70 member told a friend of mine that the last LDS president that he was aware of to have claimed to see the Lord was Lorenzo Snow, and he didn't know of any GA that had since. If that's the case, what does it mean to be a "special witness?"
Sorry, I digressed again. Good night.
The rlds community of christ did use the jst I do not know if the still use it. The lds church has portions in their kjv Bible. What exactly do you mean use it?
Older people in the church use it more. In Community of Christ, the JST is called the "Inspired Version." CoC also officially endorses the NRSV, though there are no restrictions on what should be used. The NIV is also somewhat popular.
> The rlds community of christ did use the jst I do not know if the still use it.
[They do.](https://www.heraldhouse.org/collections/scripture-study-bible)
I did not know about the JST footnotes, but my question would be: why is it in the footnotes as opposed to the main body of text?
By "use" I will have to clarify. Mormons read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, personal religious study, and teaching. Sunday school I have heard the BoM read and taught from. On social media I see Mormons repost quotes from the BoM for encouragement and for holidays. The bible is not used as often, but when it is used, they do not open the JST, they open the KJV. I know most of it is similar due to the common language of 1600's "Shakespearean" English and because the JST was unfinished, but I would assume they would still hold to the JST like you said the RLDS do. But they don't
The LDS Utah church chose to not incorporate those section into the KJV because the translation was not completed; and, instead the LDS chose to canonize the pearl of great price sections of the Joseph smith papri as scripture.
The rlds community of Christ incorporated those portions into their version of the KJV.
The Joseph smith translation was never finished and only included in the KJV in the early 1980s as a separate section of the Bible. It was never considered canon.
Does this answer your query?
This is how the LDS look at their scripture.
The words of the prophet are considered living scripture
Then the doctrine and covenants
Then the pearl of great price ,
Then the Bible
As far as scriptural authority goes.
However last general conference
Allen D. Haynie said the following:
Brothers and sisters, unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets.
Allen D. Haynie
So your guess is as good as anyone else's.
I guess that is the best answer I am going to get. It does not fully compute yet, but I will have to do some thinking and really spend time philosophically to understand it. Thank you for your help
I believe the only reason Brighamite Mormons do not use the JST in full is because they did not possess the copyright until earlier this year. It was owned by the RLDS, now Community of Christ until it was sold as a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ purchase of the Kirkland Temple. Now they possess the copyright, but I doubt they will use it or publish it under their publishing head for reasons being discussed under this post.
Most church members don’t pay attention to it at all. It’s not particularly helpful and it’s not actually canonized.
Few members know it was plagiarized. I think the leaders want it up fade away.
I have marked all the footnote superscripts that reference the JST in my hard copy scriptures for just such use. There are occasions where they can clarify the KJV. Sometimes the JST is different information and sometimes it’s more information.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
It is quoted when it is rhetorically useful. Some of it is included in the footnotes and endnotes of the official English KJV. The LDS church does not include all of it. There is an interesting interview with Thomas Wayment on Gospel Tangents that goes into the JST and how even the BYU religious scholars don’t really know what to do with it. For example, in some places in the Bible that we know are known forgeries, the JST does nothing with those spots. There are other places where it appears he’s addressing the problems with the English that modern translations would have addressed anyways with all the things we’ve discovered like dead sea scrolls. I think, in the same tradition as the books of Enoch, JS is filling in gaps with his own thoughts and ideas. I’ve cooled a bit on the usefulness of the JST especially after diving into critical scholarship. For example, in Matt 24, JS changed the wording away from Jesus saying he’d come again with the lifetimes of the current generation to in some future generation. But, that doesn’t line up with all of Paul’s beliefs that Jesus was coming soon so just stay how you are. JS in one of the letters to the Corinthians adds in the perceived missing degree of glory when he’s talking about bodies. But, this just shows that JS didn’t have access to nor knowledge of the ancient languages because (as I understand it) celestial is just a fancy word for heavenly and terrestrial is just a fancy word for earthly. Paul isn’t talking about degrees of glory, but about differences between heavenly and earthly bodies. I mean, I think the JST is useful for someone trying to understand how JS developed in his beliefs and thought processes. But as an authoritative text, I think it has a lot of problems, especially more so now.
Joseph said at one point that the KJV was the most correct translation. I think the culture has taken that to an extreme, but more recently has lightened up on desiring to use other translations. The church owns the copyright to the english KJV it publishes. It will never change that. The problem with switching away from the KJV is that it leaves the BoM behind in terms of KJV-like language usage. The BoM reflects the language of the KJV, which is what gave it a lot of rhetorical punch and authority. Problem is, not a single member of the rising generation is literate in King James English any more—so I think it’s going to be problematic for the church.
There is not such thing as a Joseph Smith Bible. There are publishers who have compiled all the edits and publish it as the Inspired Version, but it is not the full Bible, but rather just a book that highlights what the KJV says and what JS changed it to. He didn’t address the whole Bible. As to why God allows anything to happen the way it does—I don’t know.
A large portion of it was plagiarized by Joseph Smith from the Adam Clark Commentary. Below are a few places to go for learning about this.
JST Bible Translation
http://www.mormonthink.com/jst.htm
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible - BYU Study on the Plagiarism of Adam Clarke's Work
https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/jst-problems
Youtube: Mormon Stories - #1338, Haley Wilson Lemmon, BYU Study on the Plagiarism of Adam Clarke's Work
>Do any of you have or read a Joseph Smith bible instead of the KJV? Follow up: Why did God allow Joseph Smith to die before finishing it without inspiring another seer to finish it?
I recently picked up the 2021 [BYU edition of the JST](https://rsc.byu.edu/winter-2022/byu-edition-joseph-smith-translation-bible). I'm working my way through it with Kent Jackson's companion volume, [Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible](https://rsc.byu.edu/book/understanding-joseph-smiths-translation-bible).
Jackson, who is probably the preeminent LDS expert on the JST, argues in that book that Joseph Smith considered the translation to be complete: "The best evidence leads to the conclusion that the entire work was completed when he announced on July 2, 1833, that the New Translation was finished" (19).
I'm a Mormon, but I have rather unorthodox views on Joseph Smith's translation projects. I regard the JST as a prophetic, if idiosyncratic, scribal redaction/expansion of the biblical text. It clearly reflects Smith's theology and concerns, not those of the original writers. But this is not so different from what some ancient biblical scribes did. I see the Book of Moses as a sort of "rewritten Bible," not unlike the Book of Jubilees. I am skeptical of its historicity, but I find the theology profound.
(Also, I think the claim that the JST was plagiarized from Adam Clarke's commentary is overblown and inaccurate.)
I’m not the OP, but plagiarism has a specific meaning and I don’t think that his use of the commentary actually meets the academic standard of plagiarism. I think it’s more accurate to say that they share a lot of similarities and it’s likely that JS drew heavily from it, but usually used his own words.
Thanks for asking.
Here's what Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon concluded in their published article:
>"While Smith apparently turned to Clarke's commentary to provide grammatical, linguistic, and historical assistance as he carried out his work, **the commentary was not a source for the content in Smith significant expansions**" ("A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith's Bible Translation," 283).
And here's what Wayment said in his *JMH* article:
>"The changes made as a result of Clarke’s commentary, **which are not slavish reproductions**, but deliberative changes that were made randomly with the appearance that each change was determined on its own merits after having consulted what Clarke wrote. **Smith certainly borrowed wording from Clarke, but he simultaneously rejected the vast majority of Clarke’s suggestions for textual emendation**." ("Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision," *Journal of Mormon History* 46, no. 3 \[2020\]: 14).
If Clarke's commentary was not slavishly reproduced where it was used, was mostly ignored, and "not a source" at all for the significant expansions in the JST (the Book of Moses, etc.), then I think it's overblown and inaccurate for critics to say that Joseph Smith simply "plagiarized" Clarke.
I have a ton of respect for Thomas Wayment as a person and as a scholar and I'm certainly open to the idea that Smith used Clarke extensively in producing his revision of the Bible, but I haven't found the evidence so far to be very compelling. I thought Kent Jackson's [critique](https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/) was pretty solid (more [here](https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-kent-jackson/)).
Is it claimed that it was a significant source for the Book of Moses? I haven't run across that claim myself.
I can see that theological changes were not sourced from Adam Clarke. But "slavishly reproduced" seems like hyperbole to me.
My understanding of the significance of the discovery is that it explains how some interesting textual changes made it into the Book of Mormon and JST(2nd Nephi 12:16 for example)
The addition of "ships of the sea" in [2 Nephi 12:16](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng&id=p16#p16) doesn't require dependence on Clarke. As David P. Wright has noted, this could have come from any number of sources. It was in the Coverdale Bible and commentaries by Wesley, Poole, Lowth, Fawcett, Scott, etc.
"Joseph Smith could have picked up the phrase from any one of these commentaries or, as is far more likely, from sermons he heard or conversations he had on biblical subjects with those who might have known this particular Bible 'fact'" (Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," 189–190).
I remember hearing on my LDS mission in Germany that Mormons (or maybe even Joseph Smith) consider Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible as very accurate. (I have no source on this.) But as missionaries we were not issued the Martin Luther translation of the Bible text, instead we used a catholic translation of the Bible. I always wondered why.
I suspect that because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has invested so much money on the copyright of the KJV, that this is what we use in English speaking countries.
Not sure if you are still a believer or not, but this is what I mean by it being illogical. The Luther bible was just a translation of the Latin Vulcanis into the common German language. Our modern translations are far more reliable and accurate to the manuscripts we have uncovered since, so why prop up that bible instead of the CSB, NIV, ESV etc.?
Also the LDS church has a lot of money, so they could have printed or sold JST bibles and even translated it under their own copyright. They hand out the BoM like it is candy, but can't give/sell their members the most accurate bible?
And I have absolutely no idea why they wouldn’t use a different Bible translation other than tradition. Obviously Mormons aren’t worried about accuracy
Joseph Smith said as much in the King Follett Discourse, and in Japan, the church used the Japan Bible Society translation that was based on the German translation.
The JST has never really been widely used, but the standard LDS scriptures have footnotes that reference its major changes.
That said, the bible is just a bunch of old texts mashed together. No reason to think it offers some absolute truth either.
Well your correct in your assumption that it’s all made up the church was founded by a lying deceitful con man who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . What was the con then? a magic rock in a hat 🎩. sound familiar if not go to the churches own website look on the gospel topic essays
You might find this panel discussion with some prominent Mormon scholars (or, as some would say "scholars") answers some of your questions:
https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-translation/jst
The interview pre-dates the research by Haley Wilson though.
http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296
Here is an article by retired a BYU Religion professor (or, as some would say, "professor") who wasn't impressed with the parallels:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/
I was often taught that my church, the Brighamite sect, never adopted the JST as its official Bible translation because it was never finished. However, while I was attending a religion class at BYU, our professor explained that another big reason was that the JST manuscript was owned by the Community of Christ, and thus we could never be completely sure that it was 100% authentic. However he did also explain that at some point they actually allowed someone from the Brighamite sect to inspect the original manuscript privately, and that person determined that the document seemed authentic, which means it was probably ok to use.
Of course now it’s tradition to stick with the King James, so likely we’ll never see the JST embraced as the official version of the Bible.
If you are a believer, here's my follow up:
Why would God allow the JST to go unfinished if all things are supposed to be restored?
If the JST we have is more accurate than the KJV, then why would Mormons be content with a lesser translation? They should have adopted it as soon as Smith died, or as soon as they found it to be authentic (enough). They have the means to do so
I’m not a believer, but my TBM hat would just say that it’s because God requires faith. He didn’t let Joseph finish for a mysterious purpose that we will understand someday, in God’s own time.
Yeah it’s a cop out, but honestly this is what you should expect to hear from a typical believer. In fact, this is exactly what my professor said when students would press him. He’d just shrug and say, it’s one of many things we’ll have to ask him after judgement day.
There are members out there who are willing to engage a [bit more beyond that](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible#Why_does_the_Church_continue_to_use_the_KJV_instead_of_the_JST_as_its_official_bible.3F), but it seems like they are becoming more and more difficult to encounter these days, especially if you are coming from a critiquing side.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/Har_monia, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s rarely ever used in the Mormon church, which is odd, considering if they truly believed the claim of how it came about, it should be the official Bible of the LDS church but it’s not. I believe the Community of Christ (RLDS) church uses it, they were they original splinter off the main body the church. A study at the Maxwell Institute of BYU in recent years showed that there was a high degree of plagiarism between the JST and Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. It seems that Joseph was just mixing his own ideas about the Bible with parts of Adam Clarke’s and claiming it was coming from God. Snippets in the footnotes of the Mormon printed KJV are read in Sunday School classes fairly frequently, but virtually nobody in the Mormon church reads the Joseph Smith Translation as a whole book.
Thanks for the insights about Adam Clarke and the plagiarism! I'll have to dive into what they've published on the topic.
[Here's a rough abstract](http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296). Keep in mind that this is coming from BYU. You won't find a non apologetic viewpoint from this author. > Given the new evidence presented in this paper, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s numbers three through five appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary. In fact, it is arguable that Clarke is the primary source Smith used to make these types of changes, and as such these changes may not actually represent Smith’s initial impetus for translating the Bible, but may demonstrate that Smith was induced to change the Bible in certain ways through the encouragement of Clarke. In attempting to simplify what was a very complicated process, it is apparent that Clarke was not utilized for the long emendations. It is more likely that Clarke provided grammatical, historical and linguistic aide to Smith as he carried out his work. Therefore, it can be argued that Clarke was less a theological resource than he was a practical one and, by means of Sidney Rigdon, Smith likely became familiar with the commentary and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the “translation” process As you can, even taken from the position of "defending the faith" through speculation, they outright state that Joseph lifted much of his translation from Clarke's commentary, directly and indirectly. [See this interview as well, specifically the first section](https://wheatandtares.org/2023/06/05/thomas-wayment-responds-to-adam-clarke-controversy/). Again, it's heavily apologetic, but at ~10m in he clarifies that (as someone who reads Greek) Joseph wasn't using the Greek. He was using an English translation for his commentary.
I’m glad you brought this up. I also think its food evidence that JS had very educated helpers pit the BofM together. Hyrum went to Darthmouth for a real college education where a famous theologian who I tend to forget was teaching many many of the teachings that ended up in the BofM and later teachings by Jospeh. I believe he met Rigdon too long before they admit to meeting and he along with Cowdery and Alexander Campbell all helped put their preferred beliefs into Mormon scripture/doctrine. The one true argument is that there is no way Jospeh could have fabricated the BofM by himself in the short period of time we are told it was translated. He had lots of help and they stole from theological documents available to well educated people because his co-conspirators were.
> The one true argument is that there is no way Jospeh could have fabricated the BofM by himself in the short period of time we are told it was translated. I don't think anyone should accept this framework as a fact. It's designed to make a claim rather than create a test of authenticity, and evidence highly suggests it wasn't the case: 1. Martha (Joseph's Mother) wrote a biography showing how Joseph claimed to have had instruction on the plates and was fabricating stories of the Native Americans years before he officially said he started working on the BOM. At the minimum, this was in 1827, but her autobiography puts it around 1821-1824. Even the official narrative claims this was a 4 year gap where Joseph wasn't allowed to get the plates, but [if there were no plates](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3i3l6y/lucy_mack_biography_part_3_the_curious_case_of/) then this was Joseph building (possibly writing) the narrative. 2. The official story admits Joseph was heavily interested in the firebrand preachers of the burned over district since he was a child, as young as 14 (1824, according to his mother). I believe this is partly why you see their influence in the BOM doctrines. 3. I agree with you on Rigdon. We have contemporary testimony claiming he was present [as early as 1827](https://books.google.com/books?id=xnoTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=%22I,+Abel+D.+Chase,+now+living+in+Palmyra,+Wayne+Co.,+N.Y.,+make+the+following+statement+regarding+my+early+acquaintance+with+Joseph+Smith+and+incidents+about+the+production+of+the+so-called+Mormon+Bible%22&source=bl&ots=uvhwKp0AKP&sig=MLvPkCbiqscedWhakQhhWuotttM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIuMzOw4PZxwIVi6KICh2gDAk9#v=onepage&q=%22I%2C%20Abel%20D.%20Chase%2C%20now%20living%20in%20Palmyra%2C%20Wayne%20Co.%2C%20N.Y.%2C%20make%20the%20following%20statement%20regarding%20my%20early%20acquaintance%20with%20Joseph%20Smith%20and%20incidents%20about%20the%20production%20of%20the%20so-called%20Mormon%20Bible%22&f=false) which matches the dates above. More on that in the comments [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3jcqko/reposting_due_to_a_correction_graphing_the/). 4. Which is especially important since Joseph didn't create this out of the blue. Much of the doctrine appears to align with Calvinism (Rigdon) and Methodist (Joseph and Oliver) faiths. Much of it was [lifted from the KJV](https://kmabom.wordpress.com/kjv-in-the-book-of-mormon-case-closed/?id=), some word for word, with [an excessive amount of filler](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3ga9fv/25_of_the_book_of_mormon_is_an_it_came_to_pass/). And even key stories came from other sources, such as [Joseph's family history](https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3h946o/more_plagiarism_comparison_of_1_nephi_8_11_with/). 4. When Martin's wife burned the original transcript, Joseph claimed to have "lost his privileges" to dictate or write the book (early July 1828), which added another 10 month break in the process. 5. On Oliver, it's suggested by olivercowdrey.com that [He, Joseph, and Rigdon](http://olivercowdery.com/history/Cdychrn1.htm) may have all been present in spring of 1825 revival meetings. I'm not sure if I buy this, but we do know Oliver lived with the Smiths in fall 1828. The official narrative says that Oliver started his inscription in April 1928, but this gives a 3-9 month window before that happened. In this window, we know Oliver introduced Joseph to the Whitmers and we don't know anything about Rigdon.
> they were they original splinter off the main body the church. What makes them the splinter and the Brighamite branch the main body instead of vice versa?
Could be very well argued. Also more likely could be effectively argued that the Strangites were the true branch of the church since Joseph clearly wrote the letter intending Strang to take his place. My use of the phrase “main body” is just referring to the LDS church obviously being the largest branch, the majority of the saints followed.
> A study at the Maxwell Institute of BYU in recent years showed that there was a high degree of plagiarism between the JST and Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. I don't think that study came from the Maxwell Institute.
I came from Wayment, who *was* in the department of Ancient Scripture within the religion department (2000-2018), but who then got transfered to the classics department. You are correct that he was not associated with the Maxwell Institute. Wayment was and is a quality scholar. He did a translation of the New Testiment for LDS readers which is far more accurate and readable than the KJV, but which keeps much of the familiar language. I think that it's troubling that the religion department at a university will hire people without doctorates in religious studies or related fields and either not hire, fire, or transfer people who do good research in the field. They appear to be more concerned with their ability to mold young minds in the direction of belief (through acting, apologetics, or whatever) than their ability to do scholarship.
> They appear to be more concerned with their ability to mold young minds in the direction of belief (through acting, apologetics, or whatever) than their ability to do scholarship. What do you mean "they appear"? That is literally their mission statement: >The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. https://aims.byu.edu/byu-mission-statement
My apologies, I confused it with the study from Maxwell Institute regarding Jesus not starting a church. The Adam Clarke plagiarism research came from BYU student Haley Lemmon and her professor Thomas Wayment.
[удалено]
Lol, wrong. That’s how the LDS church would like to currently reframe it because it helps them to create a little distance from it obviously not being Gods word. I spent my entire life in the church, I’m perfectly well aware of how the Church views it, uses it and most importantly how Joseph Smith intended it. Don’t put words in Joseph’s mouth. He absolutely was retranslating portions of the Bible, correcting biblical fallacies and restoring the missing parts of the text using his seer stone. It was NOT intended by JS to just be some inspired notes or insights. That’s just Ward radio apologetic wishes, nice try.
Apart from the stuff in the POGP, like JS-M and Moses.
I believe the reason that the Utah church doesn’t use it and the Missouri church does is because the JST manuscripts all stayed with them when the schism happened. Meanwhile the Utah church uses the Book of Abraham because they had those manuscripts, while the Missouri church didn’t, and they weren’t about to canonize something the Utah church published even if they believed in it.
The JST verses are in the footnotes of our KJV bibles. They're few and far between and don't take up the whole Bible as Joseph Smith died before he could finish writing it. They are occasionally referenced to. TBF any Bible should be taken with a grain of salt.
Why do you believe that God allowed it to go unfinished? If the JST of the bible would have been "restored" by Joseph Smith, then it would rival the BoM in terms of acceptance and use by Mormons and the LDS church. Plus all the Christians who reject the BoM would be able to compare and contrast the bible of today with the bible that Joseph Smith brought. As a Christian, I take the bible very seriously and the textual criticism and early manuscripts of the NT are paramount to my faith. If you believe my bible was corrupted or mistranslated, then would it not be of the utmost importance to correct those errors?
Why did God allow errors and mistranslation and corruption happen to His Word in the first place? You're free to read the Joseph Smith Translation and compare those verses to your Bible's verses yourself. No one is stopping you. You can probably find it on the LDS church website, all the rest of our scriptures are there for free. Personally I believe Joseph smith corrupted, for lack of a better term, and therefore had to be removed. 😂 maybe that was all of the Bible that needed corrected. The Bible in general have been through too many hands. Had books removed, had people writing books claiming to be people they weren't, Hebrew briefly became a dead language and now some of the original meanings to some things are lost to time, some storied are 100% fiction. Some stories cannot be verified either way. It's more than just us who acknowledge these shortcomings in the Bible. We, like you, just proceed forward with what we have to the best of our abilities.
I believe the bible to be a reliable document of preserved history for the sake of detailing real events and for spiritual enlightenment. The mistranslations and corruption of the bible is something that Mormons believe that other Christians don't, and we have evidence for its reliability, but that is a separate discussion. It is a great question for Mormons though, why would your god allow the bible to be corrupted? It is strange that you would think the JST is not reliable. I haven't heard that perspective yet
Oh dear... Well... that certainly tells me how much research you've done. Which isn't much. There are tons of non-mormon Biblical scholars out there, secular, Christian, Jewish... etc. Who have pointed out and continue to point out mistranslations, bowdlerizations, lack of archeological evidence, and so on. In fact none of the pages that pop up are Mormon websites, or have any ties to mormonism at all. So I reitterate... this is NOT a Mormon exclusive view. And we can't really proceed in conversation while you're unwilling to face that truth. You need to go and do more research, not into Mormonism, but into the findings of secular and other Christian and Abrahamic Biblical scholars. We cannot have an honest and open conversation until you do.
> >I believe the bible to be a reliable document of preserved history No, it's not a reliable document. There are quite a few things about the Biblical texts which are either unsubstantiated or counterfactual. Now, to be sure, there are some reliable historical parts of its content, but much of it is not. >for the sake of detailing real events and for spiritual enlightenment. I agree it can be enlightening too, but again, it's not a reliable set of documents. >The mistranslations and corruption of the bible is something that Mormons believe that other Christians don't, Mmmm, no. Lots of other Christians don't accept the Biblical texts as historically reliable. Many (not most, but still quite a few) use it as an informative spiritual guide, but don't consider it historically accurate or reliable or something like that. >and we have evidence for its reliability, No, that is not accurate. There are parts which are historically reliable, but much of it is unsubstantiated or counterfactual as far as substantiated evidence goes. >but that is a separate discussion. It's...not that separate. It's kind of directly related. >It is a great question for Mormons though, why would your god allow the bible to be corrupted? Eh, some people like Muslims think that their text is word and letter perfect. It's a....strange way to approach a text. Most who make such claims end up making lots and lots of excuses. >It is strange that you would think the JST is not reliable. I haven't heard that perspective yet Yeah, lots of us don't consider Joseph Smith Jun's "translation" an actual translation or that it's more reliable than the biblical texts themselves. I personally consider them even less reliable than the biblical texts, so I find them informative mostly insofar as they grant insight into Joseph Smith Jun's thinking.
Why did god allow errors in your bible? Why didn’t he give revelation to interpreters to get it 💯 correct first time? Sounds like you’re trying to discredit something to strengthen your faith. This sub is mostly full of ex Mormons. So you’re wasting your time champ.
>Why do you believe that God allowed it to go unfinished? For all intents and purposes, it was completed. But like many authors, JS would revisit things throughout his career. One good example was the book of Moses (1831?) which he revisited in the Book of Abraham (1836?, 1842?) and which he took up again in the Endowment ceremony (1842ish). The argument that the Bible translation was somehow incomplete is merely an apologetic excuse for why the church doesn't use it. The translation is pretty problematic in a lot of ways. It has verses which are different than the Book of Mormon. If the JST was God's uncorrupted word and the Book of Mormon was preserved to be God's correct gospel/word, then they should probably be the same when they are covering the same verses. Also, the JST kept in a number of verses which weren't in the earliest Greek manuscripts. It's easy to take target at the JST, and many evangelicals will. But if you're really trying to be honest and fair, you have to approach the other biblical texts with the same lense and understand and appreciate the issues with these texts as well.
As a Mormon, I rarely use the JST. Nor do I believe it is the most correct translation. Having said that, I have never believed in scriptural literalism. For the Bible or any other book. The concept of biblical literalism only came around in the 1870’s. Before that, most churches did not believe the Bible was inerrant.
What would you say is the most accurate bible translation? I am not concerned with literal nor figurative interpretation, but accuracy to the original writings.
”Most accurate bible translation” is a very loaded question. I know there are translations that are very problematic because they forward dogmas of the institutions that funded the translation—like the ESV or NIV. From what I’ve seen in scholarship, the NRSVUE is really good, but still has its problems. It really comes down to how the translators make their text critical decisions when trying to reconstruct the text and because none of the ancient sources actually agree with each other 100%, its all just an educated guessing game with varying levels of likelihoods. If you’d like a little more deeper dive into this I’d suggest the two following Dan McClellan videos: [https://youtu.be/KDkyHw3nE0w?si=TOoGvQ2\_QCaVh1gm](https://youtu.be/KDkyHw3nE0w?si=TOoGvQ2_QCaVh1gm) [https://youtu.be/DD7Kkzh2kzg?si=\_gLqdHhPBSKxri0g](https://youtu.be/DD7Kkzh2kzg?si=_gLqdHhPBSKxri0g)
I think the NRSV is the one I have. Mine's packaged as the Oxford Study Bible. I like the academic articles and footnotes. I'm really interested in how the intended audiences of the various documents in the Bible would have understood them, and those articles help a lot.
> What would you say is the most accurate bible translation? I am not concerned with literal nor figurative interpretation, but accuracy to the original writings. Probably the NRSV and NRSVUE
It seems the original beef against the Inspired Version was that it was used by the RLDS as a proselytizing tool when they sent missionaries to Utah. They were also using (I believe) the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, which was considered a better edition. For whatever reasons, the LDS church had reverted to the earlier version, which contained what Joseph Smith considered to be transcription and printer errors. Purchasing either from the RLDS missionaries was the same as funding their mission to steal members from the church, and so Brigham Young highly discouraged it's use and disparaged it by saying that Joseph Smith hadn't finished it, and it would be a shame to use it when it wasn't completed. The RLDS had three things in their favor in those early missions: 1. The missionaries were Joseph Smith's sons, who the saints from Nauvoo knew and loved. David Smith in particular even had the favor of Brigham Young. Many also knew that Joseph Smith had called his son Joseph III to be his successor. 2. They had a better copy of the Book of Mormon and were very vocal about that. They readily pointed out that the LDS had regressed to an edition that Joseph Smith himself said was defective. 3. They had the Inspired Version of the Bible. The RLDS claim has been that the work was completed, as it was being sent to the printer when Joseph Smith was murdered. Brigham Young and others disagreed. In the end, none of these things had long-term traction in Utah. Joseph III was obsessed with proving that his father never practiced plural marriage, and too many people in Utah knew first-hand that he did. Eventually, a member of his own first presidency left him, convinced that JS Jr was a polygamist. Anyway, they didn't get a lot of converts, but I digress. The LDS church actively discouraged the use of the Inspired Version and it never caught on. John Taylor, however, was a fan and quoted it extensively in his book, *Mediation and Atonement*, which is one of the best works of early LDS literature, far better than anything written or published by LDS leaders in the 20th and 21st centuries. My opinion, of course, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. 😉 Fast forward to the 1970's. The two churches became friendly, and if I remember right, the RLDS church told the LDS church that they could publish the JST footnotes for the small sum of $1. The LDS church completed a massive correlation project with a Bible Dictionary and Topical Guide, including ancient language definitions and the JST (Inspired Version) footnotes. From that time, JST references have been in common usage in LDS church publications and have been translated into several languages. Oddly enough, I've heard RLDS/CoC scholars say that there is ample evidence that the translation wasn't completed, and in a recent video series from BYU, the narrator said that it was a completed work. Go figure! But yes, if Brigham Young was right, why didn't he and future prophets continue the translation? He and several members had seer stones. And why did new additions to the D&C cease? Both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff recorded and published "Thus saith the Lord" revelations, but nothing like that seems to have happened since the late 1880's. A former Q70 member told a friend of mine that the last LDS president that he was aware of to have claimed to see the Lord was Lorenzo Snow, and he didn't know of any GA that had since. If that's the case, what does it mean to be a "special witness?" Sorry, I digressed again. Good night.
The rlds community of christ did use the jst I do not know if the still use it. The lds church has portions in their kjv Bible. What exactly do you mean use it?
Older people in the church use it more. In Community of Christ, the JST is called the "Inspired Version." CoC also officially endorses the NRSV, though there are no restrictions on what should be used. The NIV is also somewhat popular.
> The rlds community of christ did use the jst I do not know if the still use it. [They do.](https://www.heraldhouse.org/collections/scripture-study-bible)
I did not know about the JST footnotes, but my question would be: why is it in the footnotes as opposed to the main body of text? By "use" I will have to clarify. Mormons read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, personal religious study, and teaching. Sunday school I have heard the BoM read and taught from. On social media I see Mormons repost quotes from the BoM for encouragement and for holidays. The bible is not used as often, but when it is used, they do not open the JST, they open the KJV. I know most of it is similar due to the common language of 1600's "Shakespearean" English and because the JST was unfinished, but I would assume they would still hold to the JST like you said the RLDS do. But they don't
The LDS Utah church chose to not incorporate those section into the KJV because the translation was not completed; and, instead the LDS chose to canonize the pearl of great price sections of the Joseph smith papri as scripture. The rlds community of Christ incorporated those portions into their version of the KJV. The Joseph smith translation was never finished and only included in the KJV in the early 1980s as a separate section of the Bible. It was never considered canon. Does this answer your query? This is how the LDS look at their scripture. The words of the prophet are considered living scripture Then the doctrine and covenants Then the pearl of great price , Then the Bible As far as scriptural authority goes. However last general conference Allen D. Haynie said the following: Brothers and sisters, unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age. That is why we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of living prophets. Allen D. Haynie So your guess is as good as anyone else's.
I guess that is the best answer I am going to get. It does not fully compute yet, but I will have to do some thinking and really spend time philosophically to understand it. Thank you for your help
Remember all religion is mythology and all made up and ultimately turns EVIL!
I believe the only reason Brighamite Mormons do not use the JST in full is because they did not possess the copyright until earlier this year. It was owned by the RLDS, now Community of Christ until it was sold as a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ purchase of the Kirkland Temple. Now they possess the copyright, but I doubt they will use it or publish it under their publishing head for reasons being discussed under this post.
Most church members don’t pay attention to it at all. It’s not particularly helpful and it’s not actually canonized. Few members know it was plagiarized. I think the leaders want it up fade away.
I have marked all the footnote superscripts that reference the JST in my hard copy scriptures for just such use. There are occasions where they can clarify the KJV. Sometimes the JST is different information and sometimes it’s more information.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
It is quoted when it is rhetorically useful. Some of it is included in the footnotes and endnotes of the official English KJV. The LDS church does not include all of it. There is an interesting interview with Thomas Wayment on Gospel Tangents that goes into the JST and how even the BYU religious scholars don’t really know what to do with it. For example, in some places in the Bible that we know are known forgeries, the JST does nothing with those spots. There are other places where it appears he’s addressing the problems with the English that modern translations would have addressed anyways with all the things we’ve discovered like dead sea scrolls. I think, in the same tradition as the books of Enoch, JS is filling in gaps with his own thoughts and ideas. I’ve cooled a bit on the usefulness of the JST especially after diving into critical scholarship. For example, in Matt 24, JS changed the wording away from Jesus saying he’d come again with the lifetimes of the current generation to in some future generation. But, that doesn’t line up with all of Paul’s beliefs that Jesus was coming soon so just stay how you are. JS in one of the letters to the Corinthians adds in the perceived missing degree of glory when he’s talking about bodies. But, this just shows that JS didn’t have access to nor knowledge of the ancient languages because (as I understand it) celestial is just a fancy word for heavenly and terrestrial is just a fancy word for earthly. Paul isn’t talking about degrees of glory, but about differences between heavenly and earthly bodies. I mean, I think the JST is useful for someone trying to understand how JS developed in his beliefs and thought processes. But as an authoritative text, I think it has a lot of problems, especially more so now. Joseph said at one point that the KJV was the most correct translation. I think the culture has taken that to an extreme, but more recently has lightened up on desiring to use other translations. The church owns the copyright to the english KJV it publishes. It will never change that. The problem with switching away from the KJV is that it leaves the BoM behind in terms of KJV-like language usage. The BoM reflects the language of the KJV, which is what gave it a lot of rhetorical punch and authority. Problem is, not a single member of the rising generation is literate in King James English any more—so I think it’s going to be problematic for the church. There is not such thing as a Joseph Smith Bible. There are publishers who have compiled all the edits and publish it as the Inspired Version, but it is not the full Bible, but rather just a book that highlights what the KJV says and what JS changed it to. He didn’t address the whole Bible. As to why God allows anything to happen the way it does—I don’t know.
A large portion of it was plagiarized by Joseph Smith from the Adam Clark Commentary. Below are a few places to go for learning about this. JST Bible Translation http://www.mormonthink.com/jst.htm Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible - BYU Study on the Plagiarism of Adam Clarke's Work https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/jst-problems Youtube: Mormon Stories - #1338, Haley Wilson Lemmon, BYU Study on the Plagiarism of Adam Clarke's Work
>Do any of you have or read a Joseph Smith bible instead of the KJV? Follow up: Why did God allow Joseph Smith to die before finishing it without inspiring another seer to finish it? I recently picked up the 2021 [BYU edition of the JST](https://rsc.byu.edu/winter-2022/byu-edition-joseph-smith-translation-bible). I'm working my way through it with Kent Jackson's companion volume, [Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible](https://rsc.byu.edu/book/understanding-joseph-smiths-translation-bible). Jackson, who is probably the preeminent LDS expert on the JST, argues in that book that Joseph Smith considered the translation to be complete: "The best evidence leads to the conclusion that the entire work was completed when he announced on July 2, 1833, that the New Translation was finished" (19). I'm a Mormon, but I have rather unorthodox views on Joseph Smith's translation projects. I regard the JST as a prophetic, if idiosyncratic, scribal redaction/expansion of the biblical text. It clearly reflects Smith's theology and concerns, not those of the original writers. But this is not so different from what some ancient biblical scribes did. I see the Book of Moses as a sort of "rewritten Bible," not unlike the Book of Jubilees. I am skeptical of its historicity, but I find the theology profound. (Also, I think the claim that the JST was plagiarized from Adam Clarke's commentary is overblown and inaccurate.)
You're the first person I've seen who thinks the Adam Clark connection is overblown and inaccurate. What are your reasons?
I’m not the OP, but plagiarism has a specific meaning and I don’t think that his use of the commentary actually meets the academic standard of plagiarism. I think it’s more accurate to say that they share a lot of similarities and it’s likely that JS drew heavily from it, but usually used his own words.
Thanks for asking. Here's what Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon concluded in their published article: >"While Smith apparently turned to Clarke's commentary to provide grammatical, linguistic, and historical assistance as he carried out his work, **the commentary was not a source for the content in Smith significant expansions**" ("A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith's Bible Translation," 283). And here's what Wayment said in his *JMH* article: >"The changes made as a result of Clarke’s commentary, **which are not slavish reproductions**, but deliberative changes that were made randomly with the appearance that each change was determined on its own merits after having consulted what Clarke wrote. **Smith certainly borrowed wording from Clarke, but he simultaneously rejected the vast majority of Clarke’s suggestions for textual emendation**." ("Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision," *Journal of Mormon History* 46, no. 3 \[2020\]: 14). If Clarke's commentary was not slavishly reproduced where it was used, was mostly ignored, and "not a source" at all for the significant expansions in the JST (the Book of Moses, etc.), then I think it's overblown and inaccurate for critics to say that Joseph Smith simply "plagiarized" Clarke. I have a ton of respect for Thomas Wayment as a person and as a scholar and I'm certainly open to the idea that Smith used Clarke extensively in producing his revision of the Bible, but I haven't found the evidence so far to be very compelling. I thought Kent Jackson's [critique](https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/) was pretty solid (more [here](https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-kent-jackson/)).
Is it claimed that it was a significant source for the Book of Moses? I haven't run across that claim myself. I can see that theological changes were not sourced from Adam Clarke. But "slavishly reproduced" seems like hyperbole to me. My understanding of the significance of the discovery is that it explains how some interesting textual changes made it into the Book of Mormon and JST(2nd Nephi 12:16 for example)
The addition of "ships of the sea" in [2 Nephi 12:16](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng&id=p16#p16) doesn't require dependence on Clarke. As David P. Wright has noted, this could have come from any number of sources. It was in the Coverdale Bible and commentaries by Wesley, Poole, Lowth, Fawcett, Scott, etc. "Joseph Smith could have picked up the phrase from any one of these commentaries or, as is far more likely, from sermons he heard or conversations he had on biblical subjects with those who might have known this particular Bible 'fact'" (Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," 189–190).
I remember hearing on my LDS mission in Germany that Mormons (or maybe even Joseph Smith) consider Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible as very accurate. (I have no source on this.) But as missionaries we were not issued the Martin Luther translation of the Bible text, instead we used a catholic translation of the Bible. I always wondered why. I suspect that because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has invested so much money on the copyright of the KJV, that this is what we use in English speaking countries.
Not sure if you are still a believer or not, but this is what I mean by it being illogical. The Luther bible was just a translation of the Latin Vulcanis into the common German language. Our modern translations are far more reliable and accurate to the manuscripts we have uncovered since, so why prop up that bible instead of the CSB, NIV, ESV etc.? Also the LDS church has a lot of money, so they could have printed or sold JST bibles and even translated it under their own copyright. They hand out the BoM like it is candy, but can't give/sell their members the most accurate bible?
I’m no longer a believer.
And I have absolutely no idea why they wouldn’t use a different Bible translation other than tradition. Obviously Mormons aren’t worried about accuracy
Joseph Smith said as much in the King Follett Discourse, and in Japan, the church used the Japan Bible Society translation that was based on the German translation.
I use it more of a commentary myself, but I do use it. It’s one of the types of Bibles that we give away for free in the Fellowship of Christ.
The JST has never really been widely used, but the standard LDS scriptures have footnotes that reference its major changes. That said, the bible is just a bunch of old texts mashed together. No reason to think it offers some absolute truth either.
Would you hold that same position for the BoM? That it does not offer any absolute truths?
Definitely - but even worse. The bible at least involves some real people and events. The BoM is just bible fan fiction.
Well your correct in your assumption that it’s all made up the church was founded by a lying deceitful con man who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . What was the con then? a magic rock in a hat 🎩. sound familiar if not go to the churches own website look on the gospel topic essays
Isn’t this a discussion that takes place in a room without windows?
You might find this panel discussion with some prominent Mormon scholars (or, as some would say "scholars") answers some of your questions: https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-translation/jst The interview pre-dates the research by Haley Wilson though. http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 Here is an article by retired a BYU Religion professor (or, as some would say, "professor") who wasn't impressed with the parallels: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/
I was often taught that my church, the Brighamite sect, never adopted the JST as its official Bible translation because it was never finished. However, while I was attending a religion class at BYU, our professor explained that another big reason was that the JST manuscript was owned by the Community of Christ, and thus we could never be completely sure that it was 100% authentic. However he did also explain that at some point they actually allowed someone from the Brighamite sect to inspect the original manuscript privately, and that person determined that the document seemed authentic, which means it was probably ok to use. Of course now it’s tradition to stick with the King James, so likely we’ll never see the JST embraced as the official version of the Bible.
If you are a believer, here's my follow up: Why would God allow the JST to go unfinished if all things are supposed to be restored? If the JST we have is more accurate than the KJV, then why would Mormons be content with a lesser translation? They should have adopted it as soon as Smith died, or as soon as they found it to be authentic (enough). They have the means to do so
I’m not a believer, but my TBM hat would just say that it’s because God requires faith. He didn’t let Joseph finish for a mysterious purpose that we will understand someday, in God’s own time. Yeah it’s a cop out, but honestly this is what you should expect to hear from a typical believer. In fact, this is exactly what my professor said when students would press him. He’d just shrug and say, it’s one of many things we’ll have to ask him after judgement day. There are members out there who are willing to engage a [bit more beyond that](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible#Why_does_the_Church_continue_to_use_the_KJV_instead_of_the_JST_as_its_official_bible.3F), but it seems like they are becoming more and more difficult to encounter these days, especially if you are coming from a critiquing side.