LDS Freedom Forum

log wrote:

Amonhi wrote: Yes I did. I find Joseph wrong in his interpretation of these verses. He did not translate the bible in the same way he did the BOM. he translated, the edited, then re translated, and re-edited. It was never a finished work. Why should we think it was good enough when he did not? His interpretation does not fit well with the entire chapter.

Well, hey. God has vouched for Joseph to me, so I'm cool with accepting Joseph's editing of the Bible (except where it conflicts with the Book of Mormon) until God says otherwise to me. People God has vouched for to me trump people God has not vouched for to me, to me.

From the Bible Dictionary - Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work.

From Wikipedia

The Translation was intended to restore what Smith described as “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”[4] But the work was not a literal translation from ancient documents, as the term translation is commonly used today. Neither was it an automatic and infallible process where "correct" words and phrases simply were revealed to Smith in final form. As with Joseph Smith's other translations, he reported that he was forced to "study it out in [his] mind"[5] as part of the revelatory process.[6] Sometimes Smith might revisit a given passage of scripture at a later time to give it a "plainer translation,"[7] because of additional knowledge or revelation about a subject.
...
Smith's Translation was a work in progress throughout his ministry. Some parts of the revision (parts of Genesis and the four Gospels) were completed from beginning to end, including unchanged verses from the KJV; some parts were revised more than once, and other parts were revised one verse at a time. The manuscripts were written, re-written, and in some cases, additional edits were written in the columns, pinned to the paper or otherwise attached. Smith relied on a version of the Bible that included the Apocrypha, and marked off the Bible as verses were examined (the Apocrypha was not included in the Translation).

Too bad God didn't just tell him line by line what it was supposed to say so we could have a more inspired version. And Ezekiel was not part of the completed books.

Even so, notice the process by which Joseph "Translated" the bible... He followed the process listed in D&C 9:

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

He wasn't given word for word. He reasoned it out in his mind as best he could under his own knowledge and power and then went to the Lord and sought for a confirmation. The process was far from certain and required many revisions. He even often would translate sections and then return them again to the original state after having studied it out or discovered new information. Not in every case, the bible is a terrible mess in some respects and we are so lucky that it came through as well as it did.

Well, hey. God has vouched for Joseph to me, so I'm cool with accepting Joseph's editing of the Bible (except where it conflicts with the Book of Mormon) until God says otherwise to me.

Interesting that you are willing to accept Joseph's changes with the only one condition that you will not accept the ones which conflict with the BoM. This doesn't seem to take any personal effort regarding searching it out for yourself or even praying or confirmation save that of knowing that "God has vouched for Joseph". You seem to blindly be accepting the edits without regard to what they might be or include, whether he got it right or not as confirmed by the Lord in each line and verse.

We now come full circle to the original question of this thread:

Jeremiah 17:5
5 ¶Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

If, therefore, trusting in man, simpliciter, gets a man cursed of the Lord, then would we do well if we slavishly follow even a true prophet, such as Joseph Smith, substituting his ideas or notions for inquiring and receiving answers directly from the Lord? After all, if there is a man between us and the Lord, does it matter if his name is Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson?

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

It seems to not make a difference whether we depend on a living or a dead prophet - either way, we be cursed, and our mind darkened. Our minds are darkened because we simply acknowledge that God has "vouched" for the prophet and from there, the thinking is done for us. We just accept whatever the prophet says or does.

A better way might be to follow the same translation process that Joseph followed and translate the bible for ourselves.

In other words, you and I and everyone might as well study it out in our own minds and make our own translation using the same process. Go ahead and include the JST version as you study it out and see if it helps you to grasp the meaning of things.

***************************************************
*** Going back to this surprising idea ***
***************************************************
If God "vouches" for someone to you, does that mean they become infallible and cannot make mistakes or that everything they undertake is done correctly? Kind of like "The church is true" so there is no error in it, Joseph Smith was a prophet so everything he did was blessed and perfect as if God had done it himself?

If I understand correctly, you are a prophet and God has "vouched" for you to you. Does that mean that you see yourself and all your work as inspired, perfect, flawless, infallible?

I am a prophet and God has "vouched" for me to me, and others, but I would not presume to think that I am beyond challenge, correction or error, nor would I want anyone, even those whom God has given a witness of my role, to believe a word or concept I believe and teach or even a single interpretation of the scriptures I espouse without being completely convinced for themselves having studied it out and and received their own witness. Not just a witness of me in general, but of each individual concept I teach or discuss. No one relies on me, but on God. I don't want followers. I want equals. If I fall or error, I take no one with me.

That is how it is meant to be. In this I feel certain.
Amonhi

Amonhi wrote:

log wrote:

Amonhi wrote: Yes I did. I find Joseph wrong in his interpretation of these verses. He did not translate the bible in the same way he did the BOM. he translated, the edited, then re translated, and re-edited. It was never a finished work. Why should we think it was good enough when he did not? His interpretation does not fit well with the entire chapter.

Well, hey. God has vouched for Joseph to me, so I'm cool with accepting Joseph's editing of the Bible (except where it conflicts with the Book of Mormon) until God says otherwise to me. People God has vouched for to me trump people God has not vouched for to me, to me.

Interesting that you are willing to accept Joseph's changes with the only one condition that you will not accept the ones which conflict with the BoM. This doesn't seem to take any personal effort regarding searching it out for yourself or even praying or confirmation save that of knowing that "God has vouched for Joseph". You seem to blindly be accepting the edits without regard to what they might be or include, whether he got it right or not as confirmed by the Lord in each line and verse.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth.

Our minds are darkened because we simply acknowledge that God has "vouched" for the prophet and from there, the thinking is done for us. We just accept whatever the prophet says or does.

Have I said Joseph was perfect? Shoot. My mind just went dark. I guess I must have.

If God "vouches" for someone to you, does that mean they become infallible and cannot make mistakes or that everything they undertake is done correctly? Kind of like "The church is true" so there is no error in it, Joseph Smith was a prophet so everything he did was blessed and perfect as if God had done it himself?

Have I said anything like this? Shoot. My mind just went darker. I guess I must have.

I wish someone could show me where, though. Oh well. Even if they did, I'd be too blind to read it. And even if I could read it, my darkened mind wouldn't comprehend it.

If I understand correctly, you are a prophet and God has "vouched" for you to you. Does that mean that you see yourself and all your work as inspired, perfect, flawless, infallible?

That's a secret. But since understanding correctly hasn't seemed to be a concern with you throughout this post, I'm not sure why you even ask - just put more words in my mouth, and lecture some more.

Amonhi wrote:

log wrote:

Amonhi wrote: Yes I did. I find Joseph wrong in his interpretation of these verses. He did not translate the bible in the same way he did the BOM. he translated, the edited, then re translated, and re-edited. It was never a finished work. Why should we think it was good enough when he did not? His interpretation does not fit well with the entire chapter.

Well, hey. God has vouched for Joseph to me, so I'm cool with accepting Joseph's editing of the Bible (except where it conflicts with the Book of Mormon) until God says otherwise to me. People God has vouched for to me trump people God has not vouched for to me, to me.

Interesting that you are willing to accept Joseph's changes with the only one condition that you will not accept the ones which conflict with the BoM. This doesn't seem to take any personal effort regarding searching it out for yourself or even praying or confirmation save that of knowing that "God has vouched for Joseph". You seem to blindly be accepting the edits without regard to what they might be or include, whether he got it right or not as confirmed by the Lord in each line and verse.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth.

My apologies. I considered what you said and couldn't find another way to interpret it. The way you linked God's GENERAL approval of Joseph with a blanket statement accepting all of Joseph's edits save those that conflict with the BoM...I just can't see any other way to interpret it. Perhaps I am missing something. (I do that you know. I'm not the sharpest tack in the shed.)

Our minds are darkened because we simply acknowledge that God has "vouched" for the prophet and from there, the thinking is done for us. We just accept whatever the prophet says or does.

Have I said Joseph was perfect? Shoot. My mind just went dark. I guess I must have.

LOL, No, you didn't say that, It was going back to that conclusion I made above when you felt I put words in your mouth. But it is also a general depiction of exactly what people really do. I see people use this poor logic all the time, with the result of being dark in their minds. It is crazy! I loved the way you addressed this. Very funny, but that' kind of what happens.

lol, the rest of the post just got darker from there... Light getting sucked out slowly. I would love to hear your corrections or the parts I must have missed if you care to elaborate. Thanks. I appologize to putting words in your mouth due to my lack of understanding.

#-o
Amonhi

I would prefer not to clarify, lest I should say something imprecisely and be lectured further.

I listen to Joseph, sure. Do I slave over him? No. I would have thought that the OP settled that. As examples, the Lectures on Faith are inconsistent - specifically, lecture one equivocates between belief and faith, treating them as equivalent; they're not. And Joseph seems to have not understood "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ..." to mean "Changing the topic..." (Hebrews 6:1), which is, to me, clearly what Paul meant. And so on and so forth. Trivial crap, really. I haven't caught him in a substantial error.

Amonhi wrote:I feel the need to say to any lukers/readers, I do not mean to challenge your testimony of the Church or the BOM, prophets or any of the other wonderful blessings we have today. I know I have put down information and ideas that may be challenge your faith. That is not my intent. I wish to point out that truth can stand on its own and is not faith building when our faith is based in false ideas, but it is always faith refining.

Regarding the information I have posted, I do believe it. I also know that whatever flaws the church, leaders and members may have they are fulfilling a VERY important role. This Church was established for the purposes of God and those purposes will be accomplished despite the flaws of its membership and leaders. My point in this thread is simply that we should not make idols of prophets, past, present or future, written, recorded or otherwise.

Sincerely and Humbly,
Amonhi

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=27929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

log wrote:I would prefer not to clarify, lest I should say something imprecisely and be lectured further.

#-o, uh, ooops...I can see why you would feel lectured...

I listen to Joseph, sure. Do I slave over him? No. I would have thought that the OP settled that.

I thought so too, that was why I was confused by your statement that God had vouched for Joseph so his edits were acceptable...it didn't seem to mesh with your OP.
Like I said in my first post regarding your OP on this thread,

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymhug: :ymparty:

Wonderful!!!
...
You a new hero of mine for this post!!!

Amonhi