User:InProgress/Website reviews/J

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Joseph's Translation of the Bible"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• That Joseph Smith's statement about the Book of Mormon being the "most correct book" means that there should be no mistakes in the text, despite the fact that the Book of Mormon itself states that any mistakes contained therein are the mistakes of men.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so he also corrected the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The BOM was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the BOM doesn’t match the JST?

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph did not believe that there was "one and only one" true translation of a given passage or text.
• The Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" in the sense that it those who read and obey its precepts will draw nearer to God than in reading any other book. This is not a claim about textual perfection or inerrancy (which the book itself insists will still be present--title page, Mormon 9꞉31).

Quotes to consider
Brigham Young taught that the Book of Mormon text would have been different if it were redone later:

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311.

Joseph Smith also noted that a given passage could have multiple translations, and a less-than-perfect translation might be sufficient:

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands (DC 128꞉18).

Additional information

• Relationship of the JST to the Book of Mormon—Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. Critics claim that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites. (Link)

• As the most correct book—Critics claim that since Joseph stated that it was "the most correct book," that the Book of Mormon should not have contained any errors. Yet, Mormon himself states in the preface that any mistakes contained therein are the mistakes of men. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why didn’t the next prophet, or any subsequent prophet, finish the inspired version of the Bible that the church thought was so important that they altered our version of the King James Bible to include the portions that Joseph did retranslate? Does it make any sense that the inspired version of the Bible should not be finished merely with the death of the first prophet of the restoration? If we really did have a succession of prophets since Joseph Smith, this important work would have been finished and published as God commanded Joseph to do.....Note: There seems to be some debate as to whether or not Joseph actually finished the inspired translation of the Bible before he was killed. From the LDS Church website: “Though he published some parts of the translation during his lifetime, it is possible that he would have made additional changes had he lived to publish the entire work.”

FairMormon commentary

• The fact that Joseph was collecting funds to publish what we call the JST suggests that he believed it was sufficiently advanced to be published.
• Again, MormonThink is confused if they think Joseph or others saw a "once and for all" or "finally completed translation" as the goal. They didn't--a translation could be acceptable for purposes, but still subject to later clarification or elaboration.
• There was no attempt to canonize the JST then, or now.
• The JST (or "Inspired Version") is probably better seen as a type of inspired commentary on the Bible text by Joseph. Its value consists not in making it the new "official" scripture, but in the insights Joseph provides readers and what Joseph himself learned during the process.
• MormonThink overlooks the fact that the JST or other scripture is not the ultimate source of LDS doctrine—having a living prophet is what is most vital. Joseph improved his prophetic capacity through the production of the JST.

Additional information

• As a restoration of the original Bible text—If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts? (Link)

• As the Church's official Bible—Why don't Latter-day Saints use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as the "official" Bible instead of the King James Version. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The JST contradicts current Mormon teaching and practice that is so basic and important to Mormonism. The doctrine of eternal marriage is not taught in the JST. Joseph (and all the subsequent prophets) left 'uncorrected' the passages about how in heaven, they neither marry nor are given in marriage...

FairMormon commentary

• This is false. Early members were well aware of the passage which says that "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" in heaven. This is why marriage and sealings then and now must be done on earth, either in life or via vicarious work for the dead.
• MormonThink's ignorance of LDS scripture is staggering:

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever (DC 132꞉15-17 (emphasis added)

• The matter is treated in the D&C. Why would the JST need to "correct it," when (a) the D&C teaches the doctrine; and (b) The D&C agrees with the Bible verses and doesn't regard them as needing "correction"?

Quotes to consider
Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way:

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (emphasis added)^[1]

Additional information

• LDS leaders on "neither marry nor are given in marriage"—Did LDS leaders see Matthew 22:28-30 ("neither marry nor are given in marriage") as threatening the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage? Did they think it needed to be 'corrected'? (Link)

• As a requirement for exaltation—How does Matthew 22:28-30 ("neither marry nor are given in marriage") apply to the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The plurality of gods is also a doctrine that was supported by the Book of Abraham. When the book of Genesis had been corrected by the Prophet the first time in 1830, the text he produced retained the Bible's (and Moses') emphasis that there is only one God. Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated. Why didn’t Joseph correct this when he translated the Bible?

FairMormon commentary

• When he gives new insight and revelation, God doesn't typically "rewrite" all scripture that has gone before. He simply adds to it.
• But, MormonThink is clearly wrong.

• Error #1: It is debatable that the unedited KJV Genesis truly only includes "one God." There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis: .
  • And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.... (Genesis 3꞉22)

Only creeds or convictions that insist on a single divine beings make us unable to notice.

• Error #2: The JST of Genesis did exactly what MormonThink claims it did not—it clarified the role and existence of multiple divine personages. How can they miss so many of those in the quotes below?

Quotes to consider

• The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (which is the JST of Genesis) has many examples of multiple divine personages:
  • I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all (Moses 1꞉6).
  • Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? (Moses 1꞉13).
  • "for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten....Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me (Moses 1꞉16-17).
  • "Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son;" (Moses 1꞉24).
  • "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten" (Moses 1꞉33).

• That's just the first chapter of the JST of Genesis. There are many, many more examples in Moses.
• In chapter 2 of Moses, God prefaces his remarks by saying, "I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest" (Moses 2꞉1). So, in each case when "I, God" did something in the creation, it should be understood that the Only Begotten is also involved, since it is by him that God created all. So, there are multiple divine personages in each mention in the verses that follow.
• What more could MormonThink possibly want?
• Why ought we to trust a site that knows so little about LDS doctrine and scripture, and can't even read so many clear, unambiguous examples that disprove their arguments?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Another error in the King James Version is the introduction of the name “Lucifer” into the English translation of Isaiah 14:12, a name with occurs nowhere else in the Bible.....This error is compounded in Mormon theology, with Lucifer appearing as a character in the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple.

Author's source(s)
"How can we know when information is from Satan?" By Richard Packham
FairMormon commentary

• In LDS theology, "Lucifer" is a name which designates the pre-mortal Satan, prior to his rebellion against God.
• Because of Isaiah's use of the term, it has a long history in that role in western Christianity.
• The use of Satan/Lucifer in the endowment is not surprising—the endowment is a symbolic ritual drama designed to teach important spiritual truths. It does not matter what Satan's "pre-fall" name really was. Names like "Jehovah" and "Jesus Christ" are Hebrew and Greek respectively: yet, Hebrew and Greek are not likely the language of the pre-mortal world either. The names are used because they quickly and accurately transmit meaning to western Christians.
• John Milton, in Paradise Lost used the term in the same way—because its use would be familiar and instantly recognizable to his Christian audience. He knew that it was an allusion, but used it because it was a well-known symbol:

Citie and proud seate

Of LUCIFER, so by allusion calld,

Of that bright Starr to SATAN paragond. - Paradise Lost, Bk IX.

• It is telling that MormonThink, which claims to be "objective" is relying on the work of a former member of the Church (Packham) who publishes LDS temple ceremonies and performs them on YouTube.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Each time linguists make a new Bible translation such as the NIV, The Message, NKJV, etc., they all go back to the original sources and try to use new information such as the Dead Sea Scrolls in making the translations, and not one to date has confirmed any of Joseph Smith's inspired version passages.

FairMormon commentary

• The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense.
• The JST better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary"--Joseph was not restoring 'lost text' (though in some cases he may have).
• MormonThink involves whole books on the subject, including those written by the foremost experts on the text.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith Translation as a restoration of the original Bible text—If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
All of the evidence that could be used to show that Joseph could actually translate ancient documents has failed to provide any support to his translating ability such as the Book of Abraham facsimiles and papyri, the Anthon Manuscript, the Kinderhook Plates, Joseph Smith’s Book of Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and the Greek Psalter. We must add the JST of the Bible to this list. It fails to support Joseph’s translating ability and adds new problems to reconcile.

FairMormon commentary

• And yet, Joseph never claimed to be "translating" in an academic sense with the JST. He had an English bible and simply made inspired revisions or commentary: he did not claim to be restoring some perfect, early text.
• MormonThink makes claims that Joseph never makes, and then blames him for failing to measure up.
• Note too all the other things that MormonThink throws in here: the Facsimiles, Anthon Manuscript, Kinderhook, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and the Greek Psalter. They act as if they have settled these issues—but they have not. We will not waste time on them here, but resources exist on all of them. A set of bad arguments and faulty data do not add up to a compelling case.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

== Notes ==

1. [note]  Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 328. ISBN 0802845037.