Biblical Trash

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Brownie points to anyone who knows which book of scripture Bruce R McConkie called “Biblical Trash.”
Spoiler
Song of Solomon
Wouldn’t it be amusing if...it was actually a very sacred writing regarding the mystery of godliness?
First of all, there is the potential that it is very badly translated by persons who frankly didn’t know what it was about and so their toilet minds did the best they were capable of.

Some have wondered if it wasn’t about Christ and His bride. But there is another possibility that seems more likely - - that it is a treatise on the ordinance of resurrection:

A glorious woman is described - - in all her fairness. It talks about her waking her loved one. Then it talks about how fair he has become, like a “young hart...skipping upon the hills.”

Some key points:

- There is an allusion to Mary anointing Jesus for His burial and resurrection in 1:12 ”While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.”

- There is a reference to a hand clasp ”His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. “His” right hand is actually the feminine - should be “her” right hand and “embrace” is better understood as “clasp.”

- There is the charge to the “daughters of Jerusalem” to not “stir up, nor awake” one’s loved one until the time is right, said several times, including 2:7

- “For lo, the winter is past” and then talk of Spring.= a rebirth theme

- Mentions of “myrrh and frankincense” and hair dripping with “dew” - - these are all pertinent to resurrection

- ”Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him.” Yes, she crowned him in the same manner that the Great Lady “crowned” the Son when she gave birth to Him in the holy of holies. This is how Sons of God are made - - they are crowned by their mother in eternity (what the HofH represents).

The theme is probably that of the resurrection - - the woman bringing forth the man and causing him to rise in a similar manner to how Isis brought back Osiris. If so, it’s little wonder the priests and scribes miss it entirely.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Baurak Ale »

Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Baurak Ale »

Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
Well, if your story is right, that would back up my suspicion very nicely. The fruit of your speculations as contained in your OP are for me quite a stirring of reflections and insights. This tells me you're on the right track. I love the connection to Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris. For those who have studied and have eyes to see, this is a rich field of study. Thank you!

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Luke »

Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
I would submit that the Song of Solomon is quoted in the D&C, including at the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Luke »

Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 3:47 pm
Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
Well, if your story is right, that would back up my suspicion very nicely. The fruit of your speculations as contained in your OP are for me quite a stirring of reflections and insights. This tells me you're on the right track. I love the connection to Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris. For those who have studied and have eyes to see, this is a rich field of study. Thank you!
Lorin Woolley and Joseph F. Smith examined the manuscript of the JST and found that the RLDS Church had made many changes.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 3:47 pm
Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
Well, if your story is right, that would back up my suspicion very nicely. The fruit of your speculations as contained in your OP are for me quite a stirring of reflections and insights. This tells me you're on the right track. I love the connection to Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris. For those who have studied and have eyes to see, this is a rich field of study. Thank you!
Ah, yes - Nephthys. She does require some thought. You’re the first LDS I’ve heard mention her. There are two divine females to the divine male in that story. Each had a distinct role. What food for thought.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Luke wrote: October 11th, 2022, 4:07 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
I would submit that the Song of Solomon is quoted in the D&C, including at the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple.
Interesting. Do you have some examples?

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13007

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Original_Intent »

A thought I have had repeatedly over the past month or so is that we each need to build our own canon.
All canon means is a bunch of men got together and decided "This book is in, this book is out." blegh.

I found the Book of Enoch I very helpful, and for me it is canon. I feel that "The Law" even though it is generally about economics, is canon - it defines celestial economic principles to my mind and is worthy of being in my canon.

Lectures on Faith is a great example it was officially decanonized even though it didn't follow the correct procedure - to me it was and remains canon.

While God ultimately decides what is canon, your journal entries can be scripture (I would suggest often SHOULD be scripture.)

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Original_Intent wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:10 pm A thought I have had repeatedly over the past month or so is that we each need to build our own canon.
All canon means is a bunch of men got together and decided "This book is in, this book is out." blegh.

I found the Book of Enoch I very helpful, and for me it is canon. I feel that "The Law" even though it is generally about economics, is canon - it defines celestial economic principles to my mind and is worthy of being in my canon.

Lectures on Faith is a great example it was officially decanonized even though it didn't follow the correct procedure - to me it was and remains canon.

While God ultimately decides what is canon, your journal entries can be scripture (I would suggest often SHOULD be scripture.)
Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom

And there’s another reference to Wisdom/Sophia

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Artaxerxes »

Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
It was not in a margin. It was prominently featured.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ource-note

Very few things were in Joseph's handwriting. He almost always used a scribe.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Baurak Ale »

Artaxerxes wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:41 pm
Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
It was not in a margin. It was prominently featured.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ource-note

Very few things were in Joseph's handwriting. He almost always used a scribe.
Hmm! Well that might settle that then.

The writings may not have been inspired of the Lord, but that doesn't mean they don't draw on some ancient and intriguing symbolism. I wouldn't call the Book of the Dead inspired writing either, but there is certainly ancient strands of truth woven through it. As my father used to tell me, any fiction that speaks to us only does so because it draws on ancient truths and themes.

Thanks for providing the link too.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by nightlight »

Lol

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 6:30 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:41 pm
Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 1:22 pm Interesting ideas. Have you seen the footnote in there regarding the JST of that book? I'll quote it here:

"The JST manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'"

Your observations make me wonder whether Joseph's true insights into these things have been lost.
If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
It was not in a margin. It was prominently featured.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ource-note

Very few things were in Joseph's handwriting. He almost always used a scribe.
Hmm! Well that might settle that then.

The writings may not have been inspired of the Lord, but that doesn't mean they don't draw on some ancient and intriguing symbolism. I wouldn't call the Book of the Dead inspired writing either, but there is certainly ancient strands of truth woven through it. As my father used to tell me, any fiction that speaks to us only does so because it draws on ancient truths and themes.

Thanks for providing the link too.
I don’t know that it matters to me how and where and by whom the “not inspired” thing was written, if it turns out to be mistaken.

Been thinking lately about “sealed” books and how perhaps one of the ways some truths make it down through the ages relatively unaltered is because those doing the altering didn’t know the code being used well enough to obscure the meaning.

I also suspect JS came to us the first time as an Elias and not an Elijah. Some things were made plain to him but others may not have been. He was not strong on the Book of Revelation, for instance. D&C 77 does not actually shed very much more light on it than we already had, no matter how “plain” he said he saw it.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

The Song of Songs/Song of Solomon is probably one of the most controversial books in the OT. Martin Luther wanted to take it out. In the end, it stayed in, and didn't get relegated to the Apocrypha partly for linguistic reasons, i.e. it was known from Hebrew manuscripts, not just Greek at the time.

We always used to find it an amusing book at school when we were teenagers. A lot of us had Bibles for religious studies and used to underline bits in it (as well as some of the aspects of Leviticus etc dealing with sex.) In adulthood, I've tended to neglect it in my Bible reading.

It is one of the few instances of erotica in the Bible, whichever way one spins in. I haven't heard the Resurrection take before, and it gives me a new way to approach it.

In non-LDS churches I have heard it explained as a symbol of the love between God and his bride, the Christian church.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

Original_Intent wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:10 pm A thought I have had repeatedly over the past month or so is that we each need to build our own canon.
All canon means is a bunch of men got together and decided "This book is in, this book is out." blegh.

I found the Book of Enoch I very helpful, and for me it is canon. I feel that "The Law" even though it is generally about economics, is canon - it defines celestial economic principles to my mind and is worthy of being in my canon.

Lectures on Faith is a great example it was officially decanonized even though it didn't follow the correct procedure - to me it was and remains canon.

While God ultimately decides what is canon, your journal entries can be scripture (I would suggest often SHOULD be scripture.)
I've got some sympathy with your view.

However, there are some books which were excluded from the canon which should remain out. Many of the infancy gospels of Jesus, and some of the gospels which focus on his mother Mary too.

As for Enoch, the big question is whether we have the real Enoch. I know some have argued we have a mutilated version. The issue with the Book of Enoch is that I think it can encourage John Dee type summoning up of angels.

User avatar
Pazooka
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5222
Location: FEMA District 8

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Pazooka »

Niemand wrote: October 12th, 2022, 3:42 am The Song of Songs/Song of Solomon is probably one of the most controversial books in the OT. Martin Luther wanted to take it out. In the end, it stayed in, and didn't get relegated to the Apocrypha partly for linguistic reasons, i.e. it was known from Hebrew manuscripts, not just Greek at the time.

We always used to find it an amusing book at school when we were teenagers. A lot of us had Bibles for religious studies and used to underline bits in it (as well as some of the aspects of Leviticus etc dealing with sex.) In adulthood, I've tended to neglect it in my Bible reading.

It is one of the few instances of erotica in the Bible, whichever way one spins in. I haven't heard the Resurrection take before, and it gives me a new way to approach it.

In non-LDS churches I have heard it explained as a symbol of the love between God and his bride, the Christian church.
Yeah, try reading it again with the resurrection lens - - the “erotica” pretty much disappears....minus the kissing. But when your loved one comes to resurrect you I think there’s going to be some kissing.

Incidentally, all the leaping around like gazelles and harts and roes made me think of the movie Twilight, where Bella is shown transformed into an immortal and she and Edward always seem to be running through the forest together, lol.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

Original_Intent wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:10 pm A thought I have had repeatedly over the past month or so is that we each need to build our own canon.
All canon means is a bunch of men got together and decided "This book is in, this book is out." blegh.

I found the Book of Enoch I very helpful, and for me it is canon. I feel that "The Law" even though it is generally about economics, is canon - it defines celestial economic principles to my mind and is worthy of being in my canon.
Enoch still is canon, if you're an Ethiopian!

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

A post I did on "Antilegomena": the books which barely made it into the Bible - Revelation, Esther, Song of Songs, James etc viewtopic.php?p=1350652
Original_Intent wrote: October 11th, 2022, 5:10 pm I found the Book of Enoch I very helpful, and for me it is canon. I feel that "The Law" even though it is generally about economics, is canon - it defines celestial economic principles to my mind and is worthy of being in my canon.
The Book of Enoch
viewtopic.php?t=69577

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Robin Hood »

Luke wrote: October 11th, 2022, 4:08 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 3:47 pm
Pazooka wrote: October 11th, 2022, 2:18 pm

If I’ve got my story right, someone scribbled that into the margins of the JST? And then apparently they did a DNA test on material from the page and it was not Joseph Smith’s?

Not sure that Joseph Smith taught or acknowledged much about the process of resurrection other than the statement he made about a wife washing and anointing her husband in preparation for his burial and resurrection, as part of second anointing. Later, the idea was put forth that this would give a woman claim on her husband in the resurrection, but I call shenanigans. I would like someone to walk me through how that train of thought goes along. It goes against what the act of washing and anointing is meant to symbolize - - birth.
Well, if your story is right, that would back up my suspicion very nicely. The fruit of your speculations as contained in your OP are for me quite a stirring of reflections and insights. This tells me you're on the right track. I love the connection to Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris. For those who have studied and have eyes to see, this is a rich field of study. Thank you!
Lorin Woolley and Joseph F. Smith examined the manuscript of the JST and found that the RLDS Church had made many changes.
I don't believe that is correct.
For a long time the LDS had no access to the JST as it was held by the RLDS. The rumour that the RLDS had made changes and were refusing to give sight of the manuscript to the LDS, gained ground in Utah and was believed by most.
However, the RLDS eventually permitted LDS representatives to to examine and photograph the JST, and they were able to confirm no changes had been made.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Luke »

Robin Hood wrote: April 5th, 2023, 6:16 am
Luke wrote: October 11th, 2022, 4:08 pm
Baurak Ale wrote: October 11th, 2022, 3:47 pm

Well, if your story is right, that would back up my suspicion very nicely. The fruit of your speculations as contained in your OP are for me quite a stirring of reflections and insights. This tells me you're on the right track. I love the connection to Isis, Nephthys, and Osiris. For those who have studied and have eyes to see, this is a rich field of study. Thank you!
Lorin Woolley and Joseph F. Smith examined the manuscript of the JST and found that the RLDS Church had made many changes.
I don't believe that is correct.
For a long time the LDS had no access to the JST as it was held by the RLDS. The rumour that the RLDS had made changes and were refusing to give sight of the manuscript to the LDS, gained ground in Utah and was believed by most.
However, the RLDS eventually permitted LDS representatives to to examine and photograph the JST, and they were able to confirm no changes had been made.
I'm not sure what the situation was there - whether the LDS Church lied, whether the RLDS Church were in cahoots with the LDS Church, whether the LDS Church was mistaken - or whatever - but they clearly got it wrong.

When the Snufferites did their big Scripture project, they found a number of changes made by the RLDS Church in their version of the JST. I've even found changes whilst reading over the manuscript versions found on the JSP website.

Lorin was right.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

Luke wrote: April 5th, 2023, 6:43 am I'm not sure what the situation was there - whether the LDS Church lied, whether the RLDS Church were in cahoots with the LDS Church, whether the LDS Church was mistaken - or whatever - but they clearly got it wrong.

When the Snufferites did their big Scripture project, they found a number of changes made by the RLDS Church in their version of the JST. I've even found changes whilst reading over the manuscript versions found on the JSP website.
What was it you noticed? Crossings out? Forged handwriting? Someone else's handwriting? Were the alterations meant to be deceptive or someone else's notes?

My main problem is that the JST isn't comprehensive enough. It is good on Matthew but doesn't seem to deal much with certain other books e.g. Torah, minor prophets. If Joseph Smith hadn't been murdered, then it may have been more thorough. I reckon there is a lot more hiding in the deep darks of the more obscure parts of the Bible and would have liked to see more commentary on the KJV Apocrypha, maybe other material.
Last edited by Niemand on April 5th, 2023, 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Robin Hood »

Luke wrote: April 5th, 2023, 6:43 am
Robin Hood wrote: April 5th, 2023, 6:16 am
Luke wrote: October 11th, 2022, 4:08 pm

Lorin Woolley and Joseph F. Smith examined the manuscript of the JST and found that the RLDS Church had made many changes.
I don't believe that is correct.
For a long time the LDS had no access to the JST as it was held by the RLDS. The rumour that the RLDS had made changes and were refusing to give sight of the manuscript to the LDS, gained ground in Utah and was believed by most.
However, the RLDS eventually permitted LDS representatives to to examine and photograph the JST, and they were able to confirm no changes had been made.
I'm not sure what the situation was there - whether the LDS Church lied, whether the RLDS Church were in cahoots with the LDS Church, whether the LDS Church was mistaken - or whatever - but they clearly got it wrong.

When the Snufferites did their big Scripture project, they found a number of changes made by the RLDS Church in their version of the JST. I've even found changes whilst reading over the manuscript versions found on the JSP website.

Lorin was right.
Do you have examples?

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Biblical Trash

Post by Niemand »

Books outside the 66 that I would recommend:
* 2 Esdras - I believe at least some of this book is inspired.
KJV audiobook
My post on this:
viewtopic.php?p=1344302

* 1 Maccabees - Interesting historical book
KJV audiobook
My post on this:
viewtopic.php?t=69454

* Bel and the Dragon - an entertaining story with some relevance, but probably not inspired
KJV audiobook
My post on this:
viewtopic.php?t=69412

This one isn't in the Apocrypha as such but I was impressed by it.
* the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... welve.html

Post Reply