Unauthorized/Unofficial JST

[tsc]

This last Sunday during PEC we were discussing Section 17 in the new handbook about using only authorized material while teaching, and, the importance of stepping in when necessary to make corrections if someone brings something up that is incorrect doctrine.

It was then brought up that there is an additional volume of the JST, but even it is not authorized. The material has been published at least once - 'The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament'.

The point was made very clearly though, that even though this was from Joseph Smith, it should not be used when teaching.

Food for thought.

[tsc]

for most Christians, the Book of Mormon is not authorized, food for thought.

Quite true, however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not just another Christian church.

[pjbrownie]

Consisyency

[freedomforall]

This last Sunday during PEC we were discussing Section 17 in the new handbook about using only authorized material while teaching, and, the importance of stepping in when necessary to make corrections if someone brings something up that is incorrect doctrine.

It was then brought up that there is an additional volume of the JST, but even it is not authorized. The material has been published at least once - 'The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament'.

The point was made very clearly though, that even though this was from Joseph Smith, it should not be used when teaching.

Food for thought.

Makes one wonder why it was ever written if it isn't to be used. Did someone go through it and pick and choose the parts we do have?

[Rand]

This last Sunday during PEC we were discussing Section 17 in the new handbook about using only authorized material while teaching, and, the importance of stepping in when necessary to make corrections if someone brings something up that is incorrect doctrine.

It was then brought up that there is an additional volume of the JST, but even it is not authorized. The material has been published at least once - 'The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament'.

The point was made very clearly though, that even though this was from Joseph Smith, it should not be used when teaching.

Food for thought.

Sounds nit picky. Even copy writes don't extend back past the 40's if I am not mistaken. Certainly, the JST is older than that, and thus, free game, unless I am missing something.

[paper face]

IMO, it's one of the reasons why we lose some of the younger generation to inactivity. For lots of teens our current KJV is a confusing cross-referenced & foot-noted nightmare. Hundreds of verses have a "caveat": the JST of the verse. Which, if you're lucky, resides down below in the footnotes. But if you're reading in Matthew or Genesis there is an appendix with dozens of verses that change the game in a confusing and often confounding way and/or cause you to have to switch back and forth between the main text and the appendix.

I understand that the translation was never completed, but the portions that were completed/added are beautiful. Why don't we have a cheap, all inclusive, unapologetic version of the Joseph Smith Translation available for regular people to read straight through without having to refer to footnotes and appendices? Isn't it antithetical to hand a Quad over to our 12-year-olds and expect them not to be overwhelmed by Talmages countless cross references? Why can't we just start them out with the plain text and reserve the current version for when they have progressed in their learning?

I think the main reason is our continuing desperation to be accepted by the greater evangelical Christian world. As long as we utilize the KJV we can claim we use the same Bible that they use. I'm obedient in what I use to teach, but I think we'd be better off abandoning the KJV for the JST. Our missionaries would also be better off preaching from the Book of Mormon alone with only passing references to the Bible.

I ended up ordering a JST from Amazon that was published by the RLDS (Herald Publishing). There are zero footnotes. It is beautiful to be able to read the Bible that Smith spent years preparing for us.

[sbsion]

JS is one of the heads of dispensatiions, if you want to "bypass" what he has left us, go ahead, I won't

[freedomforall]

IMO, it's one of the reasons why we lose some of the younger generation to inactivity. For lots of teens our current KJV is a confusing cross-referenced & foot-noted nightmare. Hundreds of verses have a "caveat": the JST of the verse. Which, if you're lucky, resides down below in the footnotes. But if you're reading in Matthew or Genesis there is an appendix with dozens of verses that change the game in a confusing and often confounding way and/or cause you to have to switch back and forth between the main text and the appendix.

I understand that the translation was never completed, but the portions that were completed/added are beautiful. Why don't we have a cheap, all inclusive, unapologetic version of the Joseph Smith Translation available for regular people to read straight through without having to refer to footnotes and appendices? Isn't it antithetical to hand a Quad over to our 12-year-olds and expect them not to be overwhelmed by Talmages countless cross references? Why can't we just start them out with the plain text and reserve the current version for when they have progressed in their learning?

I think the main reason is our continuing desperation to be accepted by the greater evangelical Christian world. As long as we utilize the KJV we can claim we use the same Bible that they use. I'm obedient in what I use to teach, but I think we'd be better off abandoning the KJV for the JST. Our missionaries would also be better off preaching from the Book of Mormon alone with only passing references to the Bible.

I ended up ordering a JST from Amazon that was published by the RLDS (Herald Publishing). There are zero footnotes. It is beautiful to be able to read the Bible that Smith spent years preparing for us.

IMO I think that it is because of the cross references and footnotes that causes other religions to view our scriptures as "the Mormon Scriptures." Even though I like these tools, the earlier editions like back in the sixties were much easier to follow. They had a lot less cross references and footnotes and were less confusing (I've heard from other members of such complaint). I agree with the idea that youngsters should have a simpler reading method until they are able to utilize the added notes, etc. I remember as a young teenager, I read the complete Book of Mormon in two weeks. And for me that was a challenge. Concerning people today, many probably think those cross references and such have always been in the scriptures. Someone can correct me, but the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon had no numbered verses and there were no center lines. It was like reading a novel.

[tsc]

Here is the reason why it is not used by the LDS church:

"The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST), also called the Inspired Version of the Bible (I.V.), was a revision of the Bible by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith considered this work to be "a branch of his calling" as a prophet. Smith was murdered before he ever deemed it complete, though most of his work on it was performed about a decade previous. The work is the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) with some significant additions and revisions. It is considered a sacred text and is part of the canon of Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), and other Latter Day Saint churches. Selections from the Joseph Smith Translation are also included in the footnotes and the appendix in the LDS-published King James Version of the Bible, but the LDS Church has only officially canonized certain excerpts that appear in its Pearl of Great Price."

[buffalo_girl]

I have never seen the complete JST of the Bible.

I'm not as dedicated to daily scripture study as I once was, but I found that when studying with the help of the Holy Ghost, a 'translation' of the Bible passages and specific verses was revealed to me as I read. When I checked the JST in the footnotes or in the Appendix, I found 'my' translation to be in perfect accord with the JST.

Why wouldn't each of us be given that insight as disciples?

According to the Prophet Joseph, the German translation was the most correct. Martin Luther must have had the same 'teacher' as Joseph.

I have found that very young children can comprehend the KJV 'language' if they are allowed to simply read and study without adults constantly directing and managing scripture reading with an 'outcome' in mind. I'm not sure what benefit comes of "Scripture Chases" other than allowing those who have a certain 'learning style' to shine.

Flitting around in the scriptures isn't necessarily understanding them. Youngsters need to learn to rely on the Spirit, too.

[Noah]

FYI:

This was the conclusion of LDS SCHOLARS Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews WHO WERE HAND PICKED BY THE GA. Robert J. Matthews, the head of the LdS Team stated in the April 1977 issue of the official LdS Church publication "New Era":

"...research in the past few years with the original manuscripts has indicated that the Inspired Version of the Bible, published by the RLDS church, is an accurate representation of the sense of the original manuscripts prepared by Joseph Smith and his scribes. Furthermore, it seems to be increasing in use and acceptance in our church today."
(“Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, Apr 1977, p.46)

[reese]

This last Sunday during PEC we were discussing Section 17 in the new handbook about using only authorized material while teaching, and, the importance of stepping in when necessary to make corrections if someone brings something up that is incorrect doctrine.

It was then brought up that there is an additional volume of the JST, but even it is not authorized. The material has been published at least once - 'The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament'.

The point was made very clearly though, that even though this was from Joseph Smith, it should not be used when teaching.And WHO said this? Maybe you should have "stepped in" and corrected someone for saying something along the lines of "incorrect doctrine".
Food for thought.

[tribrac]

Did you get that from this:

Purity of Doctrine
The doctrines of the Church are found in the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles. The Lord instructed, “The elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel” (D&C 42:12; see also D&C 52:9, 36).

All leaders should ensure that true doctrine is taught in the Church. If a person teaches false or speculative doctrine, leaders should correct it promptly and sensitively. Errors can usually be corrected in private, but major or repeated errors may require public correction.

If local leaders are unsure what doctrines or teachings are correct on a given subject, they may seek guidance from their immediate presiding authority.

I would be bored out of my mind if I could only study the officially sanctioned stuff, buton the other hand it would be nice to hear a talk in Sacrament that didn't quote Brother Bytheway or Brother Franklin Covey, or Elder Dave Ramsay, or President Millet's allegory of the Bicycle.

[buffalo_girl]

The only talks we get in Sacrament Meetings are those assigned by the Bishopric from the latest General Conference addresses. Those 'talks' end up being 'cut & paste' rehashing of addresses I've already watched and read. We drive 125 miles round trip to attend church. I often feel as though I would have done just as well to stay home and watch General Conference on the computer for an hour and BYU.TV the other two hours. We would save an addition 3 hours of driving time and the gas to get us there and back.

Is this official Sacrament Meeting protocol?

[Mahonri]

The only talks we get in Sacrament Meetings are those assigned by the Bishopric from the latest General Conference addresses. Those 'talks' end up being 'cut & paste' rehashing of addresses I've already watched and read. We drive 125 miles round trip to attend church. I often feel as though I would have done just as well to stay home and watch General Conference on the computer for an hour and BYU.TV the other two hours. We would save an addition 3 hours of driving time and the gas to get us there and back.

Is this official Sacrament Meeting protocol?

Not sure if it is "official" but it is standard in about every Ward I have ever been in in 4 different states.

I think it helps to curb people talking about controversial stuff or false doctrine.

[Mahonri]

but the LDS Church has only officially canonized certain excerpts that appear in its Pearl of Great Price."

That does not make it false. If someone wants to stop me from using the revealed word of God through His Prophet, that is their problem, not mine.

[Gideon]

I think it is really sad that we cannot use the JST in full. However, do we really need anything more than than the manual and the standard works to have the Spirit in great abundance?

[buffalo_girl]

Not sure if it is "official" but it is standard in about every Ward I have ever been in in 4 different states.

I think it helps to curb people talking about controversial stuff or false doctrine.

So...we no longer are led by the Holy Ghost in our meetings?

Moroni 6
5And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.

6And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.

9And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.

I have been a member of the Church since childhood. I do not recall EVER being given an assigned topic until the past few years. I also do not recall anyone teaching 'controversial stuff or false doctrine'.

As far as I'm concerned, most of the 'testimonies' I hear at Fast & Testimony Meeting are 'false doctrine'. A very high percentage of Mormon folk - especially the ones who manage to rush the pulpit every Fast Day - just 'run on' about themselves and their 'remarkable adventures'.

Again, it's a long drive just to serve as an audience for 'cut & paste' General Authority addresses and 'toy testimonies'. I'll do it because I know that's where the Lord wants me to be every Sunday, but I'm thinking He probably gets pretty darned bored, too.

[Mahonri]

Now Buffalo, Moroni is a "dead" Prophet. By questioning the way things are done in Christ's Church TODAY, you are questioning Christ himself.

Why do you hate modern revelation Buffalo?



Sorry for the sarcasm Buffalo.

[tribrac]

The only talks we get in Sacrament Meetings are those assigned by the Bishopric from the latest General Conference addresses. Those 'talks' end up being 'cut & paste' rehashing of addresses I've already watched and read. We drive 125 miles round trip to attend church. I often feel as though I would have done just as well to stay home and watch General Conference on the computer for an hour and BYU.TV the other two hours. We would save an addition 3 hours of driving time and the gas to get us there and back.

Is this official Sacrament Meeting protocol?

This is what happens in my ward. I even had to try a talk on a talk myself. It was very difficult to prepare. I wasn't sure if I should just highlight parts, speak on the same subject or just read his talk. Later I asked the Bishop why we didn't just put a computer on the podium and play the talks. It is not every Sunday but most are now rehashing of the latest talks. I wonder if the Bishops are just out of cretive ideas, or if instructions were given?

They also announced that the High Council will only speak once a quarter. I know most people complain about the 'dry council' but I liked thier prepared talks on subjects the Stk President assigned.

[buffalo_girl]

They also announced that the High Council will only speak once a quarter. I know most people complain about the 'dry council' but I liked thier prepared talks on subjects the Stk President assigned.

Oh! That's bad news! I look forward to High Council speakers, too, for the same reason.

I've always heard that if the Lord wants a principle taught, regardless what talk you may have prepared in advance, you will be guided to give the talk the Lord wishes the congregation to hear. We had that happen a few months ago when a new member of the Ward was assigned a General Conference talk. He recited a few quotes from the talk, opened his Book of Mormon and taught directly from Alma. He was absolutely clear on the topic of Pride as it applies to how we treat one another within the Church. One of our inactive sons was with us that day and was very impressed with this new young man and his wife because of the power of the Spirit.

Seems like we should be able to trust the Lord to send the messages He wants us to hear. I thought the 'new' missionary approach is to allow the Spirit to guide and to teach. So, once we are baptized members of the Church we turn into robots?

[freedomforall]

Did you get that from this:

Purity of Doctrine
The doctrines of the Church are found in the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles. The Lord instructed, “The elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel” (D&C 42:12; see also D&C 52:9, 36).

All leaders should ensure that true doctrine is taught in the Church. If a person teaches false or speculative doctrine, leaders should correct it promptly and sensitively. Errors can usually be corrected in private, but major or repeated errors may require public correction.

If local leaders are unsure what doctrines or teachings are correct on a given subject, they may seek guidance from their immediate presiding authority.

I would be bored out of my mind if I could only study the officially sanctioned stuff, buton the other hand it would be nice to hear a talk in Sacrament that didn't quote Brother Bytheway or Brother Franklin Covey, or Elder Dave Ramsay, or President Millet's allegory of the Bicycle.

Why else are we told to "feast upon the Word?"
It is always good to have someone we can glean from like our leadership, but the responsibility of "feasting on the word" is always on our own shoulders. We have to pray and ponder about what we're told so that what we hear coincides with scripture, which is "official church doctrine." Having said that, someone that feasts on the word would know instantly if something were said that does not match scripture. This sometimes occurs, because no one is infallibe...being human. Those who do not read scriptures, let alone feast on them, could take everything said as fact. Even doing this is against the counsel to test what we hear, because our leaders are supposed to teach only true principles; this would also extend to those who speak in sacrement. It's up to the listener to make sure that what is heard is correct.

[freedomforall]

I have never seen the complete JST of the Bible.

I'm not as dedicated to daily scripture study as I once was, but I found that when studying with the help of the Holy Ghost, a 'translation' of the Bible passages and specific verses was revealed to me as I read. When I checked the JST in the footnotes or in the Appendix, I found 'my' translation to be in perfect accord with the JST.

Why wouldn't each of us be given that insight as disciples?

According to the Prophet Joseph, the German translation was the most correct. Martin Luther must have had the same 'teacher' as Joseph.

I have found that very young children can comprehend the KJV 'language' if they are allowed to simply read and study without adults constantly directing and managing scripture reading with an 'outcome' in mind. I'm not sure what benefit comes of "Scripture Chases" other than allowing those who have a certain 'learning style' to shine.

Flitting around in the scriptures isn't necessarily understanding them...Nor is it feasting on them. Youngsters need to learn to rely on the Spirit, too.

How did all of the members of the church make it through the last 100 years who never knew about the JST? And why so much emphasis on it know? And why only a few verses allowed for our use? Seems to me that if any part of the publication were true, it all would be true. And why not? Did JS translate it, or not?

It's like the "lectures on faith" that were removed from the Doctrine & Covenants because they were deemed non canonized. Yet there are Prophets that have stated that we should read them for our profit and learning.
Why should the JST be any different?

[LukeAir2008]

This last Sunday during PEC we were discussing Section 17 in the new handbook about using only authorized material while teaching, and, the importance of stepping in when necessary to make corrections if someone brings something up that is incorrect doctrine.

It was then brought up that there is an additional volume of the JST, but even it is not authorized. The material has been published at least once - 'The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament'.

The point was made very clearly though, that even though this was from Joseph Smith, it should not be used when teaching.

Food for thought.

You have to remember that most of what Joseph Smith and his immediate successors taught is no longer authorized to be taught in Church.

About 75% of what I believe, all of which was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, I wouldn't dream of discussing or even mentioning at Church.

Where's it all going to end? Now that's food for thought!

[mattctr]

You have to remember that most of what Joseph Smith and his immediate successors taught is no longer authorized to be taught in Church. About 75% of what I believe, all of which was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, I wouldn't dream of discussing or even mentioning at Church. Where's it all going to end? Now that's food for thought!

Sunday block meetings help us "meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls" (Moroni 6:5). They are a good thing, and I look forward to attending church meetings with the ward. I try to not only learn from the spoken sermons but detect and hear the numerous UNSPOKEN sermons that abound. HOWEVER, for the most part, I believe that while the mainstream, correlated, sanctioned, and approved materials are excellent at providing global consistency and helping to avoid tendencies of teachers to rely on their own angles and introduce the philosophies of men, it is mostly milk and honey. We hear the simple and sweet things of the Kingdom, and I assume this is by design.
I don't believe the Lord wants to discourage you from growing into the meat of the gospel, but the 3 hour block, general conferences, and other public forums are not necessarily the right forums for it yet. The problem has more to do with apathy among the membership who remain content in only drinking the milk and tasting the honey. I believe church meetings are a broader gateway that consistently point us toward the pathway of scriptures, prayer, service, the temple, etc. (the primary answers), and if we can learn to do those things, the results will bring greater understanding; our minds might be opened and the glorious mysteries of the kingdom unfolded before us--line upon line. Suddenly, we get an appetite for meat and begin studying more--no longer content with only the milk. However, just because we have come to love the meat, doesn't mean it would be properly digested :ymsick: by those who are still on the bottle, and in some principles, I am among "those" on the bottle. :-$
I just re-read what I wrote and realize how ridiculous it must sound. Forgive me, but I'm too lazy to fix it.