FAIR - User contributions [en]

Wiki

2026-03-28T15:50:05Z

ReedComire:

==How to edit the Wiki==

'''Wiki Training September 2025'''
<embedvideo service="youtube">yv7SGbwCOY8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

===Creating a Page===
To create a page, copy/paste this URL into your browser: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/NameOfNewPage</nowiki>

Replace "NameOfNewPage" with the name of your new page. You will be prompted to create a new page. If you want spaces to appear in the name of the page (e.g., your page will be "Brigham Young and Plural Marriage"), then use underscores instead of spaces in the URL (e.g., <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Plural_Marriage</nowiki>).

Note that there are two wikis: "answers" and "evidences". If you are adding a page to the "evidences" wiki, you will replace the "answers" with "evidences" in the URL above. Any internal navigation will be only within the wiki you are in.

===Editing a Page===
Find the page you want to edit, and click "Edit" on the left menu, or anywhere else you see an "edit" link. You often will want to look at other similar pages to see how they format their pages.

===Headers===
To create a header for a page like "Headers" above, use "=" signs (above uses size 3):

<nowiki>= Header Size 1 =</nowiki>

<nowiki>== Header Size 2 ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>=== Header Size 3 ===</nowiki>

<nowiki>==== Header Size 4 ====</nowiki>

If you want the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL) to appear as a bolded header, use this at the top:

<nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>

===Formatting Scriptures===
<nowiki>{{s||John|7|42}}</nowiki> results in: {{s||John|7|42}}

<nowiki>{{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}</nowiki> results in: {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}

===Quoting===
To quote something, use <nowiki><blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote></nowiki>

This is the result:

<blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote>

===Linking Outside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to the outside internet, use this format:

<nowiki>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]</nowiki>

(Notice the first space separates where the link goes from what is displayed.)

This shows a link like this: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]

===Linking Inside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to a page within the wiki you are in:

<nowiki>[[Brigham Young|Click here for the awesome Brigham Young Main Page]]</nowiki>

[[Brigham Young|Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page]]

So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

===Parent and Child Pages===
The old style was to add all content for a topic on one gigantic page that scrolls forever. Then we discovered you could import the contents of an independent sub-page onto your gigantic page as if it was already together with "transclusion":
<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>

However we are moving away from this for a few reasons.

It's better to have a main page with a summary of the topic, then links or a Navigation box to additional sub pages (see "Linking Inside the Wiki"). This will be better for search results, and you can use things like <nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>.

===Redirecting===
If there is an older and a more updated page, it's better to "redirect" to the new one, so the user who finds the old page will be automatically sent to the new page.

To do this, type this at the top of the page: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[pagename]]</nowiki>

===Templates and Navigation Boxes===
If you see a navigation box like this:

{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

Click on the "V" on the left to edit.

To use an existing navigation box, type this: <nowiki>{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}</nowiki>

Navigation boxes are MediaWiki templates. You can also edit these with a URL similar to this: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Template:Navigation:Brigham Young</nowiki>. Notice the keyword "Template:" must be used right before the name of the page in the URL.

Or when logged in for editing the wiki, you can type "Navigation:Brigham Young" into the Search bar in the upper left, then click on Everything link.

===More Formatting Options===
This wiki software is called "MediaWiki". If you want to see many more formatting options, go to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting MediaWiki website].

Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-03-27T01:10:42Z

ReedComire:

< [[Main Page|'''Back to FAIR Answers Index''']]
{{Header}}
Joseph Smith's First Vision has attracted many critics of the Church. Click the links below to find faithful answers to all criticisms of Joseph Smith's First Vision.
----
*[[Introduction to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Embellishments in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Joseph Smith's First Vision and Latter-day Saint Relations with Other Christians]]
*[[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[FAIR Resources on the First Vision]]
*[[Galatians_1_8|Galatians 1:8]]
Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
<embedvideo service="youtube">lBvxbVs7Kgc</embedvideo>{{blankline}}


[[de:Joseph Smiths Erste Vision]]
[[es:La Primera Visión de José Smith]]
[[fi:Joseph Smithin ensimmäinen näky]]
[[pt:A Primeira Visão]]

Revelation

2026-03-27T00:46:22Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
{{Header}}
Many wonder how Latter-day Saints understand the nature of revelation. These pages answer their questions.
----
*[[Question: How can you know if an answer to prayer, a personal revelation, is true?]]
*[[Mormonism and other religions/Spiritual witnesses|Do Latter-day Saints believe that members of other religions can receive a spiritual witness that their own teachings are true?]]
*[[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom|The "burning in the bosom" in Mormonism as a method of determining truth]]
*[[Question: Is the Latter-day Saint conception of testimony from the Holy Ghost threatened by neuroscience or psychology?]]
*[[Question: Is Latter-day Saint epistemology a valid form of epistemology?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Feeling "the spirit" while watching movies|Why do I "feel the spirit" when watching movies?]]
*[[Understanding revelation]]

Video by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
<embedvideo service="youtube">pj1TNrciyZc</embedvideo>

Revelation

2026-03-25T06:38:43Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
{{Header}}
Many wonder how Latter-day Saints understand the nature of revelation. These pages answer their questions.
----
*[[Question: How can you know if an answer to prayer, a personal revelation, is true?]]
*[[Mormonism and other religions/Spiritual witnesses|Do Latter-day Saints believe that members of other religions can receive a spiritual witness that their own teachings are true?]]
*[[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom|The "burning in the bosom" in Mormonism as a method of determining truth]]
*[[Question: Is the Latter-day Saint conception of testimony from the Holy Ghost threatened by neuroscience or psychology?]]
*[[Question: Is Latter-day Saint epistemology a valid form of epistemology?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Feeling "the spirit" while watching movies|Why do I "feel the spirit" when watching movies?]]
*[[Understanding revelation]]
*[[Galatians_1_8|Galatians 1:8]]
Video by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
<embedvideo service="youtube">pj1TNrciyZc</embedvideo>

Revelation

2026-03-25T06:36:54Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
{{Header}}
Many wonder how Latter-day Saints understand the nature of revelation. These pages answer their questions.
----
*[[Question: How can you know if an answer to prayer, a personal revelation, is true?]]
*[[Mormonism and other religions/Spiritual witnesses|Do Latter-day Saints believe that members of other religions can receive a spiritual witness that their own teachings are true?]]
*[[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom|The "burning in the bosom" in Mormonism as a method of determining truth]]
*[[Question: Is the Latter-day Saint conception of testimony from the Holy Ghost threatened by neuroscience or psychology?]]
*[[Question: Is Latter-day Saint epistemology a valid form of epistemology?]]
*[[Holy Ghost/Feeling "the spirit" while watching movies|Why do I "feel the spirit" when watching movies?]]
*[[Understanding revelation]]
*[[Galatians 1:8|Galatians_1_8]]
Video by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
<embedvideo service="youtube">pj1TNrciyZc</embedvideo>

Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

2025-12-09T06:17:58Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

=What is the Adam-God Theory?=
==Brigham Young appeared to teach that Adam was God the Father==

In roughly 20 of Brigham Young's many sermons, he appeared to teach that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet because of this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in the Adam-God Theory, and critics accuse the church of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of their prophets.

==The Adam-God Theory is not church doctrine==
Brigham Young was the only president of the church to state such an idea, and it was never church doctrine. Subsequent prophets did not continue to preach this. Spencer W. Kimball made the rare public denouncement of this idea in General Conference in 1976.

{{epigraph|We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. —{{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Our Own Liahona|date=November 1976|start=77}}{{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/our-own-liahona?lang=eng}}
}}
{{parabreak}}

==Possible Explanations==
We do not know what Brigham Young actually believed concerning this. If Brigham actually believed Adam was God the Father, it had to have been an incorrect opinion, which prophets have sometimes, and not a revelation. There is also evidence that some sermons were transcribed incorrectly, and some theorize that Brigham Young used "Adam" as a title in referencing God the Father.

<embedvideo service="youtube">u3DEojfACqY</embedvideo>

==What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?==

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Over 500 of these [https://brighamyoungcenter.org/s/byp/page/sermons can be read online]. Many of these were published in the ''Journal of Discourses'', the ''Deseret Evening News'', and other Church publications. In 20 of these sermons he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam.<ref>Jonathan A. Stapley, "[https://www-jstor-org.erl.lib.byu.edu/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.47.1.0068?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad4093523b4b1bbc087fcb543cca2117c#metadata_info_tab_contents Brigham Young's Garden Cosmology]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 47, no. 1 (January 2021): 85.</ref> He also brought up the subject in private meetings. Nine accounts record him bringing up issues related to Adam-God to different individuals.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

<blockquote>
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=1|disc=8|start=50|end=51}} (Emphasis in the original.)</ref>
</blockquote>

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, Brigham Young appeared to say:

*Adam lived on another planet, died, and was resurrected. Adam united with Eve at some point.
*Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
*Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
*Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
*Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=David John Buerger|article=The Adam-God Doctrine|vol=15|num=1|date=Spring 1982|start=45}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,19946}}; Stapley, "Garden Cosmology," 77–82.</ref>

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation. Though it is not understood entirely what Brigham meant by "revelation." Matthew Brown in his 2009 FairMormon Conference presentation presented evidence that complicates our picture of what Brigham meant:

<blockquote>We now turn to a pertinent apologetic issue. Critics enjoy pointing out that on several occasions Brigham Young claimed that his teachings on Adam came to him through revelation. Since this section of this paper is dealing with ‘perspectives’ it is only proper that President Young be allowed to provide an idea of what he thought about, and how he experienced, the revelatory process. First of all, the question will be posed: ‘How did Brother Brigham compare himself, as a revelator, with his predecessor?’ There are two quotations that are of interest here. The second President of the LDS Church said, "I wish to ask every member of this whole community if they ever heard [me] profess to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as Joseph Smith was. [I] professed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ."<ref>3. JD, 6:319, President Brigham Young, 7 April 1852, general conference address, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tabernacle.</ref> In the second quote Brigham Young says that he "did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did."<ref> Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, 9 June 1873, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.</ref> Hence, it can be ascertained that, at least in one sense, Brigham Young did not receive communications from heaven in the same direct manner that Joseph Smith did. And it is relevant to mention here that Brigham Young did, in fact, own a seerstone that was once utilized by Joseph Smith.

Next, there is this lengthy quote from President Young which is well worth considering in its entirety. He rhetorically asked himself,
<blockquote>Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?" Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether [my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. "Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?" I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.<ref>JD, 3:209, President Brigham Young, 17 February 1856, discourse delivered in the Salt Lake City, Utah, Tabernacle.</ref></blockquote>

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the ‘revelation’ claims for Adam–God ideology did not originate with Brigham Young, but rather with his close friend and associate Heber C. Kimball. There is one well-documented instance where Brother Kimball claimed that some of the concepts connected with the Adam–God Theory were revealed to him.<ref>"The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth" (Memorandum, 30 April 1862, cited in Stanley B. Kimball, ed., On the Potter’s Wheel: The Diaries of Heber C. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 1987], 176, n. 3). There is a reported instance of Heber C. Kimball supposedly writing something similar in another manuscript but since this information was relayed by J. Golden Kimball (Heber’s son) to another person it is a third-hand account.</ref> There are also two other statements that need to be taken into careful consideration. The first comes from Thomas Stenhouse’s book. It reads: "Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the source of Brigham’s revelation on the ‘Adam deity.’"<ref> Thomas B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (London: Ward, Lock, and Tyler, 1874), 561 n. 2. If Heber C. Kimball was indeed the person who introduced the Adam–God idea to President Brigham Young and (as evidenced in the previous endnote) claimed divine revelation for that knowledge then there was, at the very least, a violation of the order whereby revelation is ordained to be received for the Church. Institutional revelations are never vouchsafed to a counselor in the First Presidency when the President has the capacity to receive them. Only the President of the LDS Church receives revelation for the entire institution. As
Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "There is but one [person] at a time who holds the keys and the right to receive revelation for the Church, and that man is the President of the Church. . . .[W]henever [the Lord] has a revelation or commandment to give to His people . . . it will come through the presiding officer of the Church" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999], 1:283–84).</ref>

Since Mr. Stenhouse was an apostate from Mormonism at the time he wrote this, some people might tend to discount his assertion. But the second statement seems to lend credence to it. This one comes from Elder Orson Pratt. He said that the notion of "Adam being our Father and our God . . .[was] advanced by Bro[ther] Kimball in the stand [or at the pulpit], and afterwards approved by
Bro[ther] Brigham."<ref>5 April 1860, meeting of the Twelve at the Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, cited in Gary J. Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 194. There does not appear to be any rebuttal of this statement from Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or anyone else. On 23 September 1860
Orson Pratt stated with reference to ideas about godhood, "I do not believe as Brother Brigham and Brother Kimball do in some points of doctrine and they do not wish me to acknowledge to a thing that I do not believe" (Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:507, Salt Lake City, Utah, Historian’s Office).</ref><ref>Matthew B. Brown, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam]" (presentation, FairMormon, Sandy, UT, August 2009).</ref></blockquote>

On at least three occasions, Brigham claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.<ref>See, for example, ''Deseret News'', 18 June 1873, p. 308{{link|url=http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,143025}}: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."</ref> While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.<ref>{{Dialogue | author=Gary James Bergera | article=The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 | vol=13 | num=2 | date=Summer 1980 | start=7 |end=49 }}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,2878}}</ref>)

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

==Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church==

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

<blockquote>
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.<ref>{{IE1|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|date=September 1902|start=873}} reprinted in {{MS|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|vol=64|num=50 |date=11 December 1902|start=785|end=790}} (this paragraph from p. 789).</ref>
</blockquote>

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

<blockquote>
We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Our Own Liahona|date=November 1976|start=77}}{{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/our-own-liahona?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Stephen E. Robinson: "Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church"=
BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:
<blockquote>
Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.<ref>Stephen E. Robinson, [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser2.htm "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation"].</ref>
</blockquote>

=Matthew Brown gave (2009): "Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries"=
Matthew Brown gave perhaps one of the best reconcilations of Adam-God at the 2009 FairMormon Conference:
<blockquote>
On the 9th of April 1852 President Brigham Young stepped up to the pulpit in the old tabernacle on Temple Square and informed a group of Elders, who had gathered there for General Conference, that he was going to straighten them out on an issue which they had been debating about. The topic of disagreement centered upon who was the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh—Elohim or the Holy Ghost. President Young surprised the people who were in attendance by announcing that it was neither one of them....Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries.<ref>Matthew B. Brown, [http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf "Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam,"] 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009).</ref>{{read more|url=http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf}}
</blockquote>

=If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?=
==The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God==

The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.

The ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' notes:

:For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael ({{s||D&C|27|11}}; {{s||D&C|29|26}}), archangel ({{s||D&C|88|112}}), and Ancient of Days ({{s||D&C|138|38}}). <ref>{{EoM|article=Adam|author=Arthur A. Bailey|vol=1|start=15|end=16}}{{link1|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=5448&filename=5449.pdf}}</ref>

Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:

:"‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.' <ref>{{TPJS1|start=167}}</ref>

This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (''attiq yômîn'') as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, ''only'' God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. <ref>{{EerdmansBD1|author=Daniel L. Smith-Christopher|article=Ancient of Days|start=62}}</ref> Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.

==D&C 27:11 and D&C 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration==

Like many Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God in the Old Testament) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that {{s||D&C|27|11}} associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.

This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.

As one non-LDS scholar noted of the passage in Daniel:

:In the Septuagint version of {{b||Daniel|7|13}} the translator has interpreted ‘he came ''to'' the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came ''as'' the Ancient of Days’. Thus, according to this Septuagint interpretation, the Son of Man is in fact the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days. In other words the original scene in Daniel 7, where two figures exist alongside each other in heaven, is changed so that the vice-regent, the Son of Man, takes upon himself the form and character of God himself.<ref>N.T. Wright, ''Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2'' (Fortress Press, SPCK: London, 1996), kindle location 12747.</ref>

It is thus not surprising that Joseph Smith could see Adam taking upon himself "the form and character of God himself" using a similar type of imagery. This type of expansion on scriptures is done literally hundreds of times by biblical prophets.

This is the best view to take in light of our understanding of Jesus Christ as Jehovah of the Old Testament (D&C 110:1-4).

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/Ancient of Days/CriticalSources]]{{blankline}}

=What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?=
==There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought==

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.

===Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family===
The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/16#16 Exodus 4:16]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/7/1#1 7:1]). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

<blockquote>
President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/78/15-16#15 D&C 78:15–16]].<ref>{{DoS|vol=1|start=98|end=99}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.

===Approach #2: Scribal error===
A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.

===Approach #3: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."===
LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume ''Brigham Young Addresses'', believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way [[Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple|"Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner"]] and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.<ref>Elden Watson, "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God" {{link|url=http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm}}</ref> Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate [[Elohim and Jehovah|Elohim/Jehovah/Michael]] with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.

Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.

===Approach #4: Brigham was wrong===
Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.<ref>Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?," Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3 (n.p., 1982).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm}}</ref> Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:

<blockquote>
Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Approach #5: We don't know the reason===
A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

<blockquote>
Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.<ref>{{aremormonschristians|start=18|end=21}} {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser2.htm}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/690}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?=
==Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it==

The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.

==The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood, and the endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century==

Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:

#The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on [[Adam-God]].)
#The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on [[temple endowment changes]].)

==How the endowment came to be written, and how Adam-God become part of it==

The following is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:

<blockquote>
Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today." <ref>David John Buerger, ''The Mysteries of Godliness'' (Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 110–13.</ref>

The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

<blockquote>
In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.
</blockquote>

On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

<blockquote>
In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:

<blockquote>
It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition. <ref>{{Dialogue | author=David John Buerger | article=The Adam-God Doctrine|vol=15|num=1|date=Spring 82|start=14|end=58 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{To learn more box:Adam-God teachings}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
{{endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]
[[Category:The Kingdom of the Cults]]
[[es:Fuente:Brown:Enseñanzas de Brigham Young en Adam:2009 Conferencia de FAIR:Brigham Young repitió estas ideas y expuso sobre ellos durante los próximos 25 años]]
[[es:Fuente:Robinson:La Exclusión por Falsedad:la presentación de anomalías como si fueran la doctrina de la Iglesia]]
[[es:Pregunta: Si la doctrina de Adán-Dios no es verdadera, ¿cómo es que D. y C. 27:11 llama a Adán el Anciano de los Días que claramente es un título para Dios en Daniel 7?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Alguna vez se enseñó la teoría del "Dios Adán" como parte de la ceremonia de investidura del templo como algo llamado "la conferencia en el velo"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la historia de la teoría de Adán-Dios de Brigham Young y por qué fue rechazada por la Iglesia?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué es la Teoría de Adán-Dios?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué intentos se han hecho para reconciliar la Teoría de Adán-Dios con las doctrinas de la Iglesia?]]
[[pt:Fonte:Brown:Ensinamentos de Brigham Young sobre Adão: Conferência de 2009 da FAIR:Brigham Young repetiu essas ideias e as apoiou pelos 25 anos seguintes]]
[[pt:Fonte:Robinson:A exclusão por erro de interpretação: A apresentação de anomalias como se fossem doutrinas da Igreja]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que é a Teoria do Adão-Deus?]]

[[es:El Mormonismo y la doctrina/Conceptos repudiados/Teoría de Adán-Dios]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Doutrina/Conceitos repudiou/Teoria Adam-Deus]]

Topical Guide/Doctrinal issues/Adam-God Theory

2025-12-09T05:43:59Z

ReedComire: Redirected page to Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

#REDIRECT[[Brigham_Young_and_Adam-God_theory]]
{{Main Page}}
{{Resources}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory
|subject=Adam-God theory
|summary=Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.
}}

{{Perspectives}}

*{{FR-13-2-12}} 
*{{FR-7-1-17}} 
*Hugh Nibley, [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=52&chapid=471 Before Adam]
*{{FR-8-1-8}}

Wiki

2025-10-26T05:19:04Z

ReedComire: /* Parent and Child Pages */

==How to edit the Wiki==

'''Wiki Training September 2025'''
<embedvideo service="youtube">yv7SGbwCOY8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

===Creating a Page===
To create a page, copy/paste this URL into your browser: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/NameOfNewPage</nowiki>

Replace "NameOfNewPage" with the name of your new page. You will be prompted to create a new page. If you want spaces to appear in the name of the page (e.g., your page will be "Brigham Young and Plural Marriage"), then use underscores instead of spaces in the URL (e.g., <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Plural_Marriage</nowiki>).

Note that there are two wikis: "answers" and "evidences". If you are adding a page to the "evidences" wiki, you will replace the "answers" with "evidences" in the URL above. Any internal navigation will be only within the wiki you are in.

===Editing a Page===
Find the page you want to edit, and click "Edit" on the left menu, or anywhere else you see an "edit" link. You often will want to look at other similar pages to see how they format their pages.

===Headers===
To create a header for a page like "Headers" above, use "=" signs (above uses size 3):

<nowiki>= Header Size 1 =</nowiki>

<nowiki>== Header Size 2 ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>=== Header Size 3 ===</nowiki>

<nowiki>==== Header Size 4 ====</nowiki>

If you want the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL) to appear as a bolded header, use this at the top:

<nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>

===Formatting Scriptures===
<nowiki>{{s||John|7|42}}</nowiki> results in: {{s||John|7|42}}

<nowiki>{{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}</nowiki> results in: {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}

===Quoting===
To quote something, use <nowiki><blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote></nowiki>

This is the result:

<blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote>

===Linking Outside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to the outside internet, use this format:

<nowiki>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]</nowiki>

(Notice the first space separates where the link goes from what is displayed.)

This shows a link like this: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]

===Linking Inside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to a page within the wiki you are in:

<nowiki>[[Brigham Young|Click here for the awesome Brigham Young Main Page]]</nowiki>

[[Brigham Young|Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page]]

So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

===Parent and Child Pages===
The old style was to add all content for a topic on one gigantic page that scrolls forever. Then we discovered you could import the contents of an independent sub-page onto your gigantic page as if it was already together with "transclusion":
<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>

However we are moving away from this for a few reasons.

It's better to have a main page with a summary of the topic, then links or a Navigation box to additional sub pages (see "Linking Inside the Wiki"). This will be better for search results, and you can use things like <nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>.

===Redirecting===
If there is an older and a more updated page, it's better to "redirect" to the new one, so the user who finds the old page will be automatically sent to the new page.

To do this, type this at the top of the page: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[pagename]]</nowiki>

===Navigation Boxes===
If you see a navigation box like this:

{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

Click on the "V" on the left to edit.

To reference an existing navigation box, type this: <nowiki>{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}</nowiki>

===More Formatting Options===
This wiki software is called "MediaWiki". If you want to see many more formatting options, go to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting MediaWiki website].

Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?

2025-10-26T04:54:47Z

ReedComire: /* Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ? */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?=
==Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture==

Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.<ref>[[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]], Youtube Video "Gospel Principles Chapter 8 Part 1" <nowiki>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z400sx6RQyQ</nowiki>; [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]], An IRR web site article at: <nowiki>http://www.irr.org/mit/GP-BSG-8-Praying-to-God.html</nowiki>. The web site article provides additional Old and New Testament cases beyond the video, where it appears individuals are praying directly to Jesus Christ.</ref>

Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture. We trust the Lord's word as revealed in both ancient and modern times and will continue to pray to our Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer directed.

==Overview==
The critical claim is made by the [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]] (IRR) in a YouTube video and on their web site. Some of IRR's YouTube video criticism seems to be based on what Bruce R. McConkie wrote in his ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' regarding Stephen's request while being stoned, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ({{s||Acts|7|59}}) Elder McConkie explained:
<blockquote>
To whom did Stephen pray? Sectarian commentators say he prayed to Jesus and not to the Father, and they accordingly claim this instance as justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son. From the day of Adam, through all ages, however, the true order of prayer has been to “call upon God in the name of the Son.” ({{s||Moses|5|8}}) The only scriptural instances in which prayers were addressed directly to the Son were when—and because!—that Holy Being, as a resurrected personage, was standing before the petitioners. ({{s|3|Nephi|19|18-36}})<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Doctrinal New Testament Commentary|vol=2|pages=79}}</ref>
</blockquote>

IRR challenges McConkie's response by citing other Old and New Testament cases where people appear to be praying to Jesus Christ (Old Testament prayers to Jehovah, {{s||John|14|14}} ESV; {{s||Acts|1|21-26}}; {{s||Acts|9|14}}, {{s||Acts|9|21}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|9-14}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|1|2}}; {{s|2|Corinthians|12|8-9}}; {{s|2|Timothy|2|22}}; {{s|1|John|5|13-15}}). The critics also state that "The Bible is clear: the gospel offers forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Jesus Christ in faith and appeal to him in prayer to save them ({{s||Acts|2|21}}, {{s||Acts|2|38}}; {{s||Acts|4|12}}; {{s||Acts|5|31}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|12-13}})."

We could discuss these scriptures in detail, however, we would be quibbling over what some would consider questionable examples of true prayers. Many seem to be cries for help or references to "calling on the Lord," which could also be describing prayers to God the Father in Christ's name. The critics are really questioning Elder McConkie's assertion that these verses are being used as "justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son." Elder McConkie's assertion should be considered an authoritative LDS opinion, but not LDS doctrine. The scriptures, on the other hand, are considered doctrine and do answer this criticism, but we need to examine the content of a few scriptures not cited by the critics.

==The Scriptural pattern for prayer==
The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in the Lord's Prayer found in {{s||Matthew|6|9-13}} and {{s||Luke|11|2-4}}. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "Our Father which art in heaven." The Lord also instructed us on several occasions to ask in his name:

<blockquote>
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." {{s||John|14|13-14}}.
 
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." {{s||John|15|16}}.
 
And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. {{s||John|16|23-24}}.
</blockquote>

In the Book of Mormon Jesus also taught the Nephites to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name:
<blockquote>
"Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name; And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you." ({{s|3|Nephi|18|19-20}})
 
"And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name." ({{s|3|Nephi|20|30-31}})
 
And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you. ({{s|3|Nephi|27|2}}, {{s|3|Nephi|27|28-29}})
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints do not pray directly to Jesus because we would be ignoring the Lord's specific instructions cited above. (See also
James E. Faust, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4db68d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Lifeline of Prayer,”] ''Liahona'', Jul 2002, 62, 67–69)

The IRR Youtube video completely ignores the scriptures cited above. We would ask those who criticize our prayers, why should we do as the critics recommend when it clearly goes against Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament and especially in the Book of Mormon? We would also be ignoring the specific instructions the Lord has given us by modern revelation. It is this modern revelation that distinguishes us from Christians that rely solely on the Bible. The scriptures indicate that "to obey is better than sacrifice" ({{s|1|Sam.|15|22}}). This same principle could apply to prayers addressed to Jesus.

Additionally, praying directly to Jesus seems unnecessary as he has taught us that he is our mediator and advocate with the Father (see {{s|1|John|2|1}}; {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}; {{s||D&C|29|5}}; {{s||D&C|32|3}}; {{s||D&C|45|3}}; {{s||D&C|110|4}}) and as such hears our prayer.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that:
<blockquote>
Jesus is our Advocate with the Father... The word advocate comes from Latin roots meaning a “voice for” or “one who pleads for another.” Other related terms are used in scripture, such as mediator (see {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}, {{s|2|Nephi|2|28}}; {{s||D&C|76|69}}). From the Book of Mormon we learn that this responsibility to mediate, or make intercession, was foreseen before His birth: Jesus “shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved” ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9}}).<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/04/jesus-the-christ-our-master-and-more?lang=eng Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More]|date=Apr 2000|pages=4}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==Statements made by early Christians==
Finally, we might cite many early Christians such as Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ] who wrote that "only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ."<ref>Johannes Quasten, ''Patrology'' (Christian Classics, n.d.; 1st Holland 1950) 2.67, citing Origen, ''On Prayer'' 16.1 [translation in ''Ancient Christian Writers'', volume 19, 1953].</ref> And also “the Father alone is ''ho theos''; the Son is simply ''theos''…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.”<ref>Citing ''Comm. John'' 2.2; and ''Contra Celsum'' 5.4; first published ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 13 (1962): 339-347. Maurice Wiles, “In Defence of Arius,” in Wiles, ''Working Papers in Doctrine'' (London 1976), 28-37, see p. 31.</ref>

Athanasius (A.D. 300-373) stated that we do not pray to the Great Unoriginate in the name of the Originated One, but rather to the Father, in the name of the Son. He wrote: “’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ And he did not call us to baptize ‘in the name of the Unoriginate and the Originate…’ but ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit….’ Those who name God ‘Unoriginate’ name him only from his external works…, but those who name God ‘Father’ immediately signify in him also the Son…, naming him from the intimate issue of his own being.’” <ref>See Robert W. Jenson, ''The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel'' (Philadelphia, 1982), 18; citing ''Epistle on Decrees of Nicaea'' 31; ''Contra Arianos'' 1.34; ''Epistle to Serapion'' 4-6. Also in R. S. Franks, ''The Doctrine of the Trinity'' (London 1953), 111.</ref>

The Council of Carthage, North Africa, held in A.D. 397 wrote:
<blockquote>
“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.”<ref>Catherine Mowry LaCugna, ''God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life'' (Harper Collins, 1993), 141, note 88; quoting J. Mansi, ed., ''Sacrorum Conciliorum'' (Paris, 1901), 3:347-409.</ref>
</blockquote>

LaCugna also records that the A.D. 393 Council of Hippo stated:
<blockquote>
“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,"</ref> LaCugna, 126.</ref>

Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck refers to the same Council and makes the same point: “The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father—a practice proposed as normative at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393,”<ref>van Beeck, ''God Encountered'', Volume I (1989), 228-9; see also Josef A. Jungmann, S.J., ''The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great'' (University of Notre Dame 1959), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}


[[de:Frage: Warum beten Heilige der Letzten Tage nicht direkt zu Jesus Christus?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué los Santos de los Últimos Días ofrecen oraciones directamente a Jesucristo?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2025-10-26T04:50:30Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}

=The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus=

Traditional Christianity believes in the Trinity, that the Father, Jesus and Holy Ghost are three persons, but are one in substance. This is regarded as incomprehensible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separate and unique beings, one in purpose, and comprehensible.

Like Traditional Christianity, we believe Jesus is God, the Savior, our Redeemer, and atoned for our sins. We believe that Jesus created our world.

We believe Jesus is the Son of God, both His body and His spirit. We believe all spirits are children of God the Father, including Jesus. Traditional Christianity believes Jesus has been God eternally, and accuses us of not believing that, that perhaps there was a time when Jesus was not God in our belief. We also believe Jesus is the "Eternal God", but have no information concerning the timing in the eternities. We believe Jesus was resurrected with a body, and now has a body.

[[Question:_Do_Latter-day_Saints_believe_in_a_"different"_Jesus_than_"mainstream"_Christians|Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians]]

[[Question:_How_does_the_Mormon_view_of_the_Atonement_compare_to_the_evangelical_Christian_view|Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view]]

[[Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?|Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?]]

[[Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being|Question: Is Jesus a Created Being?]]

[[Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:1:Sameness_of_Jesus'_humanity|Webb's Quote on the Sameness of Jesus' humanity]]

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus/CriticalSources}}


[[de:Jesus Christus/Heilige der Letzten Tage verehren einen anderen Jesus]]
[[pt:Jesus Cristo/O "Mormon" versus o "cristão" Jesus]]
[[es:Jesucristo/El Jesucristo "mormón" y el Jesucristo "cristiano"]]

Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ

2025-10-26T04:37:39Z

ReedComire: Created page with "=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?= ==Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture== Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.<ref>Institute for Religious Research, Youtube Video "Gospel Prin..."

=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?=
==Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture==

Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.<ref>[[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]], Youtube Video "Gospel Principles Chapter 8 Part 1" <nowiki>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z400sx6RQyQ</nowiki>; [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]], An IRR web site article at: <nowiki>http://www.irr.org/mit/GP-BSG-8-Praying-to-God.html</nowiki>. The web site article provides additional Old and New Testament cases beyond the video, where it appears individuals are praying directly to Jesus Christ.</ref>

Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture. We trust the Lord's word as revealed in both ancient and modern times and will continue to pray to our Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer directed.

==Overview==
The critical claim is made by the [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]] (IRR) in a YouTube video and on their web site. Some of IRR's YouTube video criticism seems to be based on what Bruce R. McConkie wrote in his ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' regarding Stephen's request while being stoned, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ({{s||Acts|7|59}}) Elder McConkie explained:
<blockquote>
To whom did Stephen pray? Sectarian commentators say he prayed to Jesus and not to the Father, and they accordingly claim this instance as justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son. From the day of Adam, through all ages, however, the true order of prayer has been to “call upon God in the name of the Son.” ({{s||Moses|5|8}}) The only scriptural instances in which prayers were addressed directly to the Son were when—and because!—that Holy Being, as a resurrected personage, was standing before the petitioners. ({{s|3|Nephi|19|18-36}})<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Doctrinal New Testament Commentary|vol=2|pages=79}}</ref>
</blockquote>

IRR challenges McConkie's response by citing other Old and New Testament cases where people appear to be praying to Jesus Christ (Old Testament prayers to Jehovah, {{s||John|14|14}} ESV; {{s||Acts|1|21-26}}; {{s||Acts|9|14}}, {{s||Acts|9|21}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|9-14}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|1|2}}; {{s|2|Corinthians|12|8-9}}; {{s|2|Timothy|2|22}}; {{s|1|John|5|13-15}}). The critics also state that "The Bible is clear: the gospel offers forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Jesus Christ in faith and appeal to him in prayer to save them ({{s||Acts|2|21}}, {{s||Acts|2|38}}; {{s||Acts|4|12}}; {{s||Acts|5|31}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|12-13}})."

We could discuss these scriptures in detail, however, we would be quibbling over what some would consider questionable examples of true prayers. Many seem to be cries for help or references to "calling on the Lord," which could also be describing prayers to God the Father in Christ's name. The critics are really questioning Elder McConkie's assertion that these verses are being used as "justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son." Elder McConkie's assertion should be considered an authoritative LDS opinion, but not LDS doctrine. The scriptures, on the other hand, are considered doctrine and do answer this criticism, but we need to examine the content of a few scriptures not cited by the critics.

==The Scriptural pattern for prayer==
The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in the Lord's Prayer found in {{s||Matthew|6|9-13}} and {{s||Luke|11|2-4}}. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "Our Father which art in heaven." The Lord also instructed us on several occasions to ask in his name:

<blockquote>
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." {{s||John|14|13-14}}.
 
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." {{s||John|15|16}}.
 
And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. {{s||John|16|23-24}}.
</blockquote>

In the Book of Mormon Jesus also taught the Nephites to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name:
<blockquote>
"Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name; And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you." ({{s|3|Nephi|18|19-20}})
 
"And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name." ({{s|3|Nephi|20|30-31}})
 
And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you. ({{s|3|Nephi|27|2}}, {{s|3|Nephi|27|28-29}})
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints do not pray directly to Jesus because we would be ignoring the Lord's specific instructions cited above. (See also
James E. Faust, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4db68d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Lifeline of Prayer,”] ''Liahona'', Jul 2002, 62, 67–69)

The IRR Youtube video completely ignores the scriptures cited above. We would ask those who criticize our prayers, why should we do as the critics recommend when it clearly goes against Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament and especially in the Book of Mormon? We would also be ignoring the specific instructions the Lord has given us by modern revelation. It is this modern revelation that distinguishes us from Christians that rely solely on the Bible. The scriptures indicate that "to obey is better than sacrifice" ({{s|1|Sam.|15|22}}). This same principle could apply to prayers addressed to Jesus.

Additionally, praying directly to Jesus seems unnecessary as he has taught us that he is our mediator and advocate with the Father (see {{s|1|John|2|1}}; {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}; {{s||D&C|29|5}}; {{s||D&C|32|3}}; {{s||D&C|45|3}}; {{s||D&C|110|4}}) and as such hears our prayer.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that:
<blockquote>
Jesus is our Advocate with the Father... The word advocate comes from Latin roots meaning a “voice for” or “one who pleads for another.” Other related terms are used in scripture, such as mediator (see {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}, {{s|2|Nephi|2|28}}; {{s||D&C|76|69}}). From the Book of Mormon we learn that this responsibility to mediate, or make intercession, was foreseen before His birth: Jesus “shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved” ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9}}).<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/04/jesus-the-christ-our-master-and-more?lang=eng Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More]|date=Apr 2000|pages=4}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==Statements made by early Christians==
Finally, we might cite many early Christians such as Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ] who wrote that "only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ."<ref>Johannes Quasten, ''Patrology'' (Christian Classics, n.d.; 1st Holland 1950) 2.67, citing Origen, ''On Prayer'' 16.1 [translation in ''Ancient Christian Writers'', volume 19, 1953].</ref> And also “the Father alone is ''ho theos''; the Son is simply ''theos''…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.”<ref>Citing ''Comm. John'' 2.2; and ''Contra Celsum'' 5.4; first published ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 13 (1962): 339-347. Maurice Wiles, “In Defence of Arius,” in Wiles, ''Working Papers in Doctrine'' (London 1976), 28-37, see p. 31.</ref>

Athanasius (A.D. 300-373) stated that we do not pray to the Great Unoriginate in the name of the Originated One, but rather to the Father, in the name of the Son. He wrote: “’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ And he did not call us to baptize ‘in the name of the Unoriginate and the Originate…’ but ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit….’ Those who name God ‘Unoriginate’ name him only from his external works…, but those who name God ‘Father’ immediately signify in him also the Son…, naming him from the intimate issue of his own being.’” <ref>See Robert W. Jenson, ''The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel'' (Philadelphia, 1982), 18; citing ''Epistle on Decrees of Nicaea'' 31; ''Contra Arianos'' 1.34; ''Epistle to Serapion'' 4-6. Also in R. S. Franks, ''The Doctrine of the Trinity'' (London 1953), 111.</ref>

The Council of Carthage, North Africa, held in A.D. 397 wrote:
<blockquote>
“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.”<ref>Catherine Mowry LaCugna, ''God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life'' (Harper Collins, 1993), 141, note 88; quoting J. Mansi, ed., ''Sacrorum Conciliorum'' (Paris, 1901), 3:347-409.</ref>
</blockquote>

LaCugna also records that the A.D. 393 Council of Hippo stated:
<blockquote>
“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,"</ref> LaCugna, 126.</ref>

Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck refers to the same Council and makes the same point: “The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father—a practice proposed as normative at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393,”<ref>van Beeck, ''God Encountered'', Volume I (1989), 228-9; see also Josef A. Jungmann, S.J., ''The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great'' (University of Notre Dame 1959), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}


[[de:Frage: Warum beten Heilige der Letzten Tage nicht direkt zu Jesus Christus?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué los Santos de los Últimos Días ofrecen oraciones directamente a Jesucristo?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view

2025-10-26T04:35:08Z

ReedComire: Created page with "=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?= ==The way that evangelical Christians view the Mormon approach to the atonement== It is claimed that the Latter-day Saints view of the Atonement is as follows: #The atonement "provides everyone with a general resurrection and cancellation of the consequences of Adam's transgression;" #It "took place primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane;" #It "was possible before C..."

=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?=
==The way that evangelical Christians view the Mormon approach to the atonement==
It is claimed that the Latter-day Saints view of the Atonement is as follows:

#The atonement "provides everyone with a general resurrection and cancellation of the consequences of Adam's transgression;"
#It "took place primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane;"
#It "was possible before Christ had died and was raised;"
#The atonement "is not complete unless the individual demonstrates total obedience."

The four positions of the Christian theory, which by definition must be correct, are:

#The atonement "provides for the salvation of only those who have faith in Christ;"
#It "took place on the cross alone;"
#It "was possible only after Christ's death;"
#It "is complete for the believer by the grace of God."<Ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 10}}</ref>

==The Latter-day Saint meaning of "salvation" is different than the evangelical Christian meaning of the word==
As is so frequently done, the critics here are attempting to compare apples and oranges. They are contrasting "resurrection" on the LDS side with "salvation" on the other side. They are contrasting "cross only" with "garden and cross." They are rejecting the possibility of the Israelites having any knowledge whatever of the works of the future Messiah, and therefore being saved by their faith in the future Messiah. And do they really want to contrast "obedience" to the Gospel with the "grace of God?" Does God require nothing at all of us after that grace has entered our life? The Lord had something to say about those who cry Lord, Lord, but do not what He says. The restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith actually makes the two positions most compatible, at least from the perspective of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is really only the critics who have a problem reconciling the two positions. The LDS position is a broader concept, based on further light and knowledge, i.e., revelation from God.

The Latter-day Saints teach a principle of exaltation, beyond the ordinary salvation mentioned by evangelical critics, which makes both systems compatible on the first point. Salvation is a free gift of grace provided for by the atoning death and resurrection of the Savior; however, the specific type of resurrection is based on one's own life activity: we will be judged according to our works; ({{s||John|5|29}}) Jesus Christ is the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." ({{s||Hebrews|5|9}}) The "Great Commission" of Jesus to the Apostles at the end of Matthew says that they are "to teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." ({{s||Matthew|28|20}}) The word 'primarily' in the second point of differences opens up the door for reconciling the two positions on the issue of Gethsemane vs. Calvary. As has been seen, there is no such issue for the Latter-day Saints: the atonement begins in the Garden (or before creation, 'before the foundations of the world were laid'), and ends on the Cross (or perhaps is still continuing, with Christ continuing to intercede for us with the Father).

==Latter-day Saints basically agree that until the atonement and resurrection had actually taken place, there was no opportunity for anyone==
The Latter-day Saints basically agree with the third critical position point, in the sense that until, or unless, the atonement and resurrection had actually taken place, there was no opportunity for anyone, before or after that event, to receive the benefits of it. All this really means however is that there was no resurrection prior to the resurrection of the Savior Himself, and, therefore, no possibility of anyone being brought back into the presence of God the Father. Heaven was only a dream until the atonement and resurrection made its attainment a real possibility. As for the forgiveness of sins: since it is based on the atonement by Jesus Christ, that could be accomplished, because of the foreknowledge of the Father: He knew that His Son would follow through with the Atonement, thereby redeeming all from the individual effects of the Fall. The belief in the possibility of receiving a forgiveness of one's sins prior to the birth and death of the Savior is also contingent upon the belief in Prophets being 'truly' called of God. One must believe that God can really and truly call to His service an individual and proclaim to them what will be in the future. If we believe with Paul that the "gospel was preached beforetime to Abraham," or that the "Israelites were baptized to God in a cloud," we must do so completely. If the gospel was preached to them, then we have to admit that they were, at least to some degree, taught about the future Savior and His atoning sacrifice. We must believe that, not only would He not leave their souls in hell, but that He would make a way possible for them to confess their sins and repent of them. If this is true, then a certain amount of salvation was possible before the birth of the Savior. However, it still required His atonement and resurrection to make the fullness of that salvation possible.

==Latter-day Saint accept that the atoning sacrifice of the Savior was an act of grace==
The fourth position point deals with the principle of grace, which Latter-day Saints accept, if understood properly. The atoning sacrifice of the Savior was an act of grace; no one forced Him to go through with it; nor did we, on the basis of anything we had done, merit its occurrence. Christ atoned for the sin of Adam, and for our individual sins, because He loved us. But we have to accept it if it is going to be meaningful in our lives. All will receive that aspect of the atonement that applies to the resurrection of the body; only those who accept Jesus Christ and follow His commandments are going to receive the fullest benefits of that sacrifice.
</onlyinclude>

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/Atonement/LDS versus evangelical Christian view/CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}



[[pt:Pergunta: Como é que a visão Mórmon da Expiação comparar com a visão cristã evangélica?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo se compara la visión mormona de la Expiación con la visión evangélica cristiana?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians

2025-10-26T04:33:20Z

ReedComire: Created page with "=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?= =="Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus": Mormons worship the Jesus Christ of the Bible== It would be enlightening for any Latter-day Saint to read this description of the "Mormon Jesus" in the left column and see just how much of this is recognizable as church doctrine. The list is taken from page ''One Nation Under Gods'', p. 378 (PB). This claim..."

=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?=
=="Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus": Mormons worship the Jesus Christ of the Bible==

It would be enlightening for any Latter-day Saint to read this description of the "Mormon Jesus" in the left column and see just how much of this is recognizable as church doctrine. The list is taken from page ''One Nation Under Gods'', p. 378 (PB). This claim is repeated in the author's later work [[Becoming Gods#The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"|''Becoming Gods''—The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"]].
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="40%"|The "mainstream Christian" author's misrepresentation of "Mormon Beliefs About Jesus"
!width="40%"|Jesus Christ, as He is actually viewed by Latter-day Saints
!width="20%"|For more information...
|-
|A ''literal'' son (spirit-child) of a god (Elohim) and his wife.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that ''everyone'' is a spirit child of Heavenly Father, including Jesus. What is a spirit child? We don't have the details.
*Our eternal nature was organized into a spirit person, whatever that is. We don't know the details. We don't know the process by which we became a spirit person.
*The difference between us is that Jesus is divine, while the rest of us are not.
*Why the emphasis on the word "literal"? Apparently, to once again call attention to the subject of [["Celestial sex"|"Celestial Sex."]]
||
*[[Jesus Christ's conception]]
|-
|The elder brother of all spirits born in the pre-existence to Heavenly Father.||
*Latter-day Saints do not claim to know by what method a spirit is "born."
*Christ is the "eldest," but what this means is also not clear. Is it a question of temporality? (i.e., He came first in time) Is it a rank? Does it describe His relationship to us? We simply don't claim to know, since time is only measured unto man.
*Latter-day Saints do believe that Christ was ''not'' created ex nihilo at some moment; He is eternally self-existent.
||
*[[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
|-
|A polygamous Jewish male.
||
*This is not a belief among Latter-day Saints, and is based entirely upon non-doctrinal statements made by Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt.
*It is surprising that this claim is still in the paperback edition of [[One Nation Under Gods|''One Nation Under Gods'']]. It was, however, removed from [[Becoming Gods|''Becoming Gods'']].
||
*[[Was Jesus Christ married/Was Jesus a polygamist|Do Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus was a polygamist?]]
|-
|One of three gods overseeing this planet.||
*There is only one God. Christ is one of three divine beings in the Godhead. They are one in purpose, not one in person. {{b||John|17|3}}, {{b||John|17|20-22}}
*Regardless of this, a creedal Christian ought not to have a problem with one God consisting of more than one Person.
||
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
|-
|Atoned only for Adam's transgression by sweating blood in Gethsemane.
||
*This statement is completely false.
*The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ's sacrifice was "infinite and eternal." (2 Nephi) It could not be exceeded in any sense. Christ suffered for the sins, griefs, and pains of all humanity (Alma 7), whether or not they repent.
*The benefits of that atonement are restricted if we refuse to do that which He asks of us to accept it (i.e. have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end.)
*Note that this statement was changed in [[Becoming Gods#The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"|''Becoming Gods''—The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"]] to "Atoned only for Adam's transgression, thereby providing the opportunity for us to obtain "eternal life" by our own efforts. The change, however, didn't really do anything to correct this falsehood.
||
*[[Salvation by faith alone]]
*[[Neglect grace]]
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
|-
|The ''literal'' spirit brother of Lucifer.||
*Again, note the emphasis on the word "literal." Latter-day Saints do ''not'' consider Jesus in any way to be Satan's "peer."
||
*[[Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan]]
|-
|Jesus' sacrificial death is not able to cleanse some people of ''all'' their sins.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that only those who ''reject the atonement'' cannot be cleansed from all their sins. If one doesn't accept the atonement, then the atonement can't save him or her. But, that is a reflection on the sinner, and does ''not'' imply that Christ's atonement was "not able" to cleanse our sins.
*This is probably alluding to [[Blood atonement|blood atonement]].
*Jesus Christ Himself taught that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was an "unforgivable sin." {{b||Matthew|12|31-32}}
||
*[[Unforgivable sin]]
|-
|There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that there is no salvation without accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. Salvation is obtained by receiving Jesus and his atoning sacrifice. The statement presented in the book is nonsense. All save the sons of perdition are saved. All will be resurrected.
*A fullness of salvation requires accepting the words of ALL the prophets--including those who wrote the Bible, and including Joseph Smith.
*If one believes that you have to accept the Bible witness to be saved, then how can one fault Latter-day Saints for believing that another prophet's witness must also be accepted? LDS doctrine saves infidels and non-Christians in a resurrection of glory, and provides for their evangelization after death.
||
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]
|}
</onlyinclude>

{{endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Mormonism Unmasked]]
[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]

[[pt:Pergunta: Santos dos Últimos Dias acreditam em um "diferente" do que Jesus "mainstream" cristãos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los Santos de los Últimos Días creen en un Jesús "diferente" que en los cristianos "corrientes"?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2025-10-26T04:01:39Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}

Traditional Christianity believes in the Trinity, that the Father, Jesus and Holy Ghost are three persons, but are one in substance. This is regarded as incomprehensible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separate and unique beings, one in purpose, and comprehensible.

Like Traditional Christianity, we believe Jesus is God, the Savior, our Redeemer, and atoned for our sins. We believe that Jesus created our world.

We believe Jesus is the Son of God, both His body and His spirit. We believe all spirits are children of God the Father, including Jesus. Traditional Christianity believes Jesus has been God eternally, and accuses us of not believing that, that perhaps there was a time when Jesus was not God in our belief. We also believe Jesus is the "Eternal God", but have no information concerning the timing in the eternities. We believe Jesus was resurrected with a body, and now has a body.

<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Jesus_Christ/The_"Mormon"_vs._the_"Christian"_Jesus
|H=The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus
|S=
|L1=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?
|L2=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?
|L3=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?
|L4=Is Jesus a Created Being?
|L5=Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: The "sameness of Jesus" and humanity
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?}}
{{:Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?}}
{{:Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?}}
{{:Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:1:Sameness_of_Jesus'_humanity}}

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus/CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

[[de:Jesus Christus/Heilige der Letzten Tage verehren einen anderen Jesus]]
[[pt:Jesus Cristo/O "Mormon" versus o "cristão" Jesus]]
[[es:Jesucristo/El Jesucristo "mormón" y el Jesucristo "cristiano"]]

Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being

2025-10-25T20:52:04Z

ReedComire:

=Is Jesus a Created Being?=

Some Christian critics make the claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe “Jesus is a created being”.
There is not an official church statement which uses this phrase. This is an interpretation of our beliefs, said in a way which makes us look weird.

Traditional Christians believe in the Trinity, that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same substance, and were God in the beginning of the universe. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings. We believe Jesus is the Son of God, both His physical body on earth, as well as His spirit. So, if Jesus is a son of God the Father, therefore He had to be “born” at some point, so critics claim He is then a “created being”.

===When Was The Beginning===
First, understand the Biblical writers probably did not comprehend the idea of other planets and a universe beyond Earth. To them, the Earth was the universe. This may have affected their concept of eternity. Jesus definitely was God and “in the beginning” as far as the earth is concerned.

The question becomes what happened at the beginning of time? None of us can comprehend such a thing. Creedal Christians believe in creatio ex nihilo, which is creation of the universe out of nothing. We do not believe this.

===Intelligences and Spirits===
We believe intelligences or spirits have always existed. Therefore Jesus’ spirit has always existed, so Jesus has always existed, as far as we know.

<blockquote>The Spirit of Man is not a created being…It existed from Eternity and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal. – Joseph Smith<ref>https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/3</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. - {{s||D&C|93|29}} </blockquote>

<blockquote>…spirits … have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. {{s||Abraham|3|18}}</blockquote>

The word “intelligence” is not always used the same in the scriptures. Sometimes an “intelligence” is equated with a “spirit”. Some people believe “intelligence” is our conscience within our spirit bodies. It is taught that humans who become exalted could somehow have spirit children.

<blockquote>Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was… {{s||Abraham|3|22}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>…which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. {{s||D&C|132|19}}</blockquote>

The logic follows perhaps Jesus’s spirit body, at some point after the beginning of the universe, maybe was “organized” or “created”? This is the stretch that critics make. Some also speculate having spirit children is like an adoption of something which already exists, not creation. But we do not know for sure.<ref>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/23/come-follow-me-week-35-doctrine-and-covenants-93</ref>

==="Jesus is Eternal" Scriptures===
The title page of the Book of Mormon, calls Jesus Christ "the Eternal God," and so does 2 Nephi 26:12, Mosiah 15:1–4, Mosiah 16:15, Alma 11:38–40, Alma 34:14. Thus, however the word “eternal” is correctly defined: “in the beginning of the universe”, “in the beginning of the earth” or something else, Jesus was still God in the beginning and was not “created”.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

2025-10-25T19:44:19Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
= What is the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)? =
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.

The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng See the JST on the church website].

<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}} <ref>Video published by BYU Religious Education</ref>

==Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?==
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

==More about the JST==

[[What_was_the_translation_procedure_to_produce_the_JST|How was the JST translated?]]

[[Was_the_JST_ever_completed|Was the JST ever completed?]]

[[Why_are_there_discrepancies_between_translations_in_the_Book_of_Mormon,_KJV_and_the_JST_of_the_Bible|Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?]]

[[Why_is_JST_Genesis_creation_account_not_more_like_the_Book_of_Abraham|Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?]]

[[Why_does_the_Church_use_the_KJV_instead_of_the_JST_as_its_official_bible|Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?]]

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/was-joseph-smith-influenced-by-outside-sources-in-his-translation-of-the-bible Was the JST influenced by outside sources?]

[[Did_Adam_Clarkes_Bible_Commentary_influence_the_JST|Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?]]

[[Why_does_the_Book_of_Mormon_and_Book_of_Moses_describe_God_as_creating_while_the_Book_of_Abraham_describes_Gods|Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?]]

[[Why_does_the_JST_of_Genesis_(Book_of_Moses)_contain_New_Testament_language|Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?]]

[[What_is_the_relationship_between_the_JST_and_biblical_manuscripts|What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?]]

[[JST_Genesis_50_33|Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?]]

[[Is_the_Church_embarrassed_by_the_JST|Is the church embarrassed by the JST?]]

{{To learn more box:Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Joseph Smith}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}

{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[en:Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/Relationship to the Book of Mormon]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo explicamos la posibilidad de múltiples autores del Libro de Isaías y el Libro de Mormón?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los traductores académicos copiar las traducciones de otros documentos para utilizar como un "texto base"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué el Libro de Mormón coincide con la versión King James (KJV) de la Biblia tan de cerca?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué muchas de las citas de Isaías en el Libro de Mormón idénticas a las de la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como é que vamos explicar múltipla "Isaías" e do Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Não tradutores acadêmicos copiar traduções de outros documentos para usar como "texto base"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que muitas das citações de Isaías no Livro de Mórmon são idênticas às da Bíblia do Rei James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que o Livro de Mórmon coincide tão rigorosamente com a Versão do Rei James?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

2025-10-25T19:38:35Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
= What is the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)? =
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.

The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng See the JST on the church website].

<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}} <ref>Video published by BYU Religious Education</ref>

==Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?==
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

==More about the JST==

[[What_was_the_translation_procedure_to_produce_the_JST|How was the JST translated?]]

[[Was_the_JST_ever_completed|Was the JST ever completed?]]

[[Why_are_there_discrepancies_between_translations_in_the_Book_of_Mormon,_KJV_and_the_JST_of_the_Bible|Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?]]

[[Why_is_JST_Genesis_creation_account_not_more_like_the_Book_of_Abraham|Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?]]

[[Why_does_the_Church_use_the_KJV_instead_of_the_JST_as_its_official_bible|Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?]]

[[Did_Adam_Clarkes_Bible_Commentary_influence_the_JST|Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?]]

[[Why_does_the_Book_of_Mormon_and_Book_of_Moses_describe_God_as_creating_while_the_Book_of_Abraham_describes_Gods|Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?]]

[[Why_does_the_JST_of_Genesis_(Book_of_Moses)_contain_New_Testament_language|Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?]]

[[What_is_the_relationship_between_the_JST_and_biblical_manuscripts|What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?]]

[[JST_Genesis_50_33|Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?]]

[[Is_the_Church_embarrassed_by_the_JST|Is the church embarrassed by the JST?]]

{{To learn more box:Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Joseph Smith}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}

{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[en:Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/Relationship to the Book of Mormon]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo explicamos la posibilidad de múltiples autores del Libro de Isaías y el Libro de Mormón?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los traductores académicos copiar las traducciones de otros documentos para utilizar como un "texto base"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué el Libro de Mormón coincide con la versión King James (KJV) de la Biblia tan de cerca?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué muchas de las citas de Isaías en el Libro de Mormón idénticas a las de la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como é que vamos explicar múltipla "Isaías" e do Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Não tradutores acadêmicos copiar traduções de outros documentos para usar como "texto base"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que muitas das citações de Isaías no Livro de Mórmon são idênticas às da Bíblia do Rei James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que o Livro de Mórmon coincide tão rigorosamente com a Versão do Rei James?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

Is the Church embarrassed by the JST

2025-10-25T19:37:17Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

===This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence===

Some critics have claimed that the Church is "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=385}}</ref>

This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence. The claim was made in 1977. In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work. Thus, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before the Tanners began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Lavina Fielding Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible]|date=Oct 1979|start=9}} </ref> It had multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST.

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use. Some examples of this effort published around the time the Tanners were making their claim include:

* Robert J. Matthews, “The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/the-bible-and-its-role-in-the-restoration?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Plain and Precious Things Restored,” Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/07/plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/a-greater-portrayal-of-the-master?lang=eng}}
* Monte S. Nyman, “Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible,” Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/restoring-plain-and-precious-parts-the-role-of-latter-day-scriptures-in-helping-us-understand-the-bible?lang=eng}}

The Church is not, and was not, embarrassed by the JST. In its historical context, the critics' claim is incredibly ill-informed.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church's official Bible/JST an embarrassment to leaders/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-25T19:36:50Z

ReedComire:

=Was Joseph Smith a "Self Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?=

Critics note that one verse in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, Genesis 50:33, is a verse that prophesies about Joseph Smith. This verse does not exist in Genesis the world has today, which ends with verse 50:26.

Critics complain this is a “self-certifying prophecy”. They say Joseph made up a verse which talks about himself, which does not exist in today’s Bible, to convince others that he was a prophet.

===Genesis 50:33 is Not Scripture===

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) is a compilation of Joseph's writings about various Biblical verses. (Here is more about the [[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST from FAIR)]], and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]).

Although some of the JST was canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST as a whole is not. JST Genesis 50:33 appears to be a restoration of missing information or missing scripture, but we don’t know its purpose for sure. Joseph did not write this as a specific verse of scripture originally; this was added later.

===Joseph Smith did not use this to market himself===
Joseph Smith did not use this one comment to publicly market himself as a prophet. Otherwise, he would have published it and discussed it frequently. The entire JST was first published in 1867, long after Joseph died, by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ). Not until 1979 did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JST (with this verse) as part of the footnotes in the King James Bible.

A similar verse in {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}} exists, but Joseph did not use that as a marketing tool either.

===Jesus also referred to missing scripture about Himself===
Jesus also referred to missing scripture which talked about Himself: {{s||John|8|56}}, {{s||John|7|38}}, {{s||John|7|42}}.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts

2025-10-25T19:36:35Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

The Joseph Smith Translation does claim to be, in part, a restoration of the original content of the Bible. This may have been done (a) by reproducing the ''text'' as it was originally written down; or, (b) it may have been about reproducing the original ''intent'' and ''clarifying the message'' of the original author of the text in question. We are not entirely sure, but in either case the JST does claim to be, in part, a restoration.

Critics who fault the JST because it doesn't match known manuscripts of the Bible are being too hasty: we do not have the original manuscripts of any text of the Bible, nor do we know the exact nature of every change made in the JST and whether a particular change was meant to be a restoration of original text.

Kent P. Jackson, another leading expert on the JST, wrote:

<blockquote>
Some may choose to find fault with the Joseph Smith Translation because they do not see correlations between the text on ancient manuscripts. The supposition would be that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. This reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that extant ancient manuscripts accurately reproduce the original test, and both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach otherwise.<ref>"History of Joseph Smith," 592; 1 Nephi 13:28; see 13:23–29.</ref> Because the earliest Old and New Testament manuscripts date from long after the original documents were written, we no longer have original manuscripts to compare with Joseph Smith's revisions. The second problem with faulting the JST because it does not match ancient texts is that to do so assumes that all the revisions Joseph Smith made were intended to restore original text. We have no record of him making that claim, and even in places in which the JST would restore original text it would do so not in Hebrew or Greek but in Modern English and in the scriptural idiom of early nineteenth-century America. Revisions that fit in others of the categories listed above are likewise in modern English, "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" ({{s||D&C|1|24}})/<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.</ref>
</blockquote>

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 is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary". The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng lds.org] "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible". Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding. In general, it 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.

The Book of Moses was produced as a result of Joseph's efforts to clarify the Bible. This portion of the work was canonized and is part of the Pearl of Great Price. There was no attempt to canonize the rest of the JST then, or now.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

Why does the JST of Genesis (Book of Moses) contain New Testament language

2025-10-25T19:36:10Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

The Book of Moses comes from the few chapters of the JST—it is essentially the JST of the first chapters of Genesis.

The translation includes many phrases from the New Testament. The following occurences of New Testament language and concepts reflected in the Book of Moses were documented by David M. Calabro—a Latter-day Saint and Curator of Eastern Christian Manuscripts at the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library at Saint John’s University.<ref name="Calabro_An_early">{{Interpreter:Calabro:An Early Christian Context For The Book Of:2021}}</ref>

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=33%|'''Phrase'''
!width="33%"|'''Location in Book of Moses'''
!width="34%"|'''Location in New Testament'''
|-
|"Only Begotten" and "Only Begotten Son"
||Moses 1:6, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 26, 27; 3:18; 4:1, 3, 28, 5:7, 9, 57; 6:52, 57, 59, 62; 7:50, 59, 62
||John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9
|-
|"transfigured before" God
||Moses 1:11
||Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2
|-
|"get thee hence, Satan"
||Moses 1:16
||Matthew 4:10
|-
|the Holy Ghost "beareth record" of the Father and the Son
||Moses 1:24; 5:9
||1 John 5:7
|-
|"by the word of my power"
||Moses 1:32, 35; 2:5
||Hebrews 1:3
|-
|"full of grace and truth"
||Moses 1:32, 5:7
||John 1:14; cf. John 1:17
|-
|"immortality and eternal life"
||Moses 1:39
||Both terms are absent from the Old Testament but are relatively frequent in the New Testament: ''immortality'' occurs six times, all in Pauline epistles; ''eternal life'' occurs twenty-six times in the Gospels, Pauline epistles, epistles of John, and Jude; "eternal life" also appears elsewhere like in Moses 5:11; 6:59; 7:45.
|-
|"them that believe"
||Moses 1:42; 4:32
||Mark 16:17; John 1:12; Romans 3:22; 4:11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 14:22; Galatians 3:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 10:39; the contrasting phrase "them that do not believe" also appears (Rom. 15:31; 1 Cor. 10:27; 14:22)
|-
|"I am the Beginning and the End"
||Moses 2:1
||Revelation 21:6; 22:13
|-
|"Beloved Son" as a title of Christ
||Moses 4:2
||Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17; the phrase "beloved son" appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 20:13; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 1:2) and in the Greek Septuagint of Gen. 22:2, but it is absent from the Hebrew and KJV Old Testament.
|-
|"my Chosen," as a title of Christ
||Moses 4:2; 7:39
||Compare "chosen of God" in reference to Christ in Luke 23:35 and 1 Pet. 2:4
|-
|"thy will be done"
||Moses 4:2
||Matthew 6:10; 26:42; Luke 11:2
|-
|"the glory be thine forever"
||Moses 4:2
||Compare Matthew 6:13 - "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever;" note the proximity of this phrase to "thy will be done" both in Moses 4:2 and in the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:9–1.
|-
|"by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that [Satan] should be cast down"
||Moses 4:3
||Compare Revelation 12:10 - "Now is come . . . the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down"; note that the Hebrew title ''Satan'' means "accuser"
|-
|"the devil"
||Moses 4:4
||Sixty-one instances in the New Testament, translating the Greek word ''diabolos''
|-
|"carnal, sensual, and devilish"
||Moses 5:13; 6:49
||James 3:15 "earthly, sensual, and devilish"
|-
|"Satan desireth to have thee"
||Moses 5:23
||Luke 22:31 "Satan hath desired to have you"
|-
|"Perdition," as the title of a person
||Moses 5:24
||Compare "the son of perdition" in John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; the word ''perdition'' as an abstract noun meaning "destruction" (translating the Greek word ''apoleia'') occurs elsewhere in the King James version of the New Testament (Philippians 1:28; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 17:8, 11)
|-
|"the Gospel"
||Moses 5:58, 59, 8:19
||Eighty-three instances in the New Testament; the word ''gospel'', irrespective of the English definite article, occurs 101 times in the New Testament but is not found in the Old Testament.
|-
|"holy angels"
||Moses 5:58
||Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Acts 10:22 (singular "holy angel"); Revelation 14:10
|-
|"gift of the Holy Ghost"
||Moses 5:58; 6:52
||Acts 2:38; 10:45
|-
|"anointing" the eyes in order to see
||Moses 6:35 – "anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see"
||Compare John 9:6–7, 11 (Jesus anoints the eyes of a blind man with clay and commands him to wash in the pool of Siloam, and he "came seeing"); Revelation 3:18 (the Lord tells the church in Laodicea, "anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see"); these are the only passages in the Bible that refer to anointing the eyes
|-
|"no man laid hands on him"
||Moses 6:39
||John 7:30, 44; 8:20
|-
|"my God, and your God"
||Moses 6:43
||John 20:17
|-
|"only name under heaven whereby salvation shall come"
||Moses 6:52
||Acts 4:12
|-
|collocation of water, blood, and Spirit
||Moses 6:59-60
||1 John 5:6, 8
|-
|"born again of water and the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit"; "born again"; "born of water and of the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit"
||Moses 6:59, 65
||John 3:3, 5-8
|-
|"the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"
||Moses 6:59
||Matthew 13:11. The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is absent from the Old Testament; in the New Testament it is found only in Matthew (thirty-two occurrences), but it is frequent in rabbinic literature
|-
|"cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten"
||Moses 6:59
||Compare 1 John 1:7 ("the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin")
|-
|"the words of eternal life"
||Moses 6:59
||John 6:68
|-
|eternal life "in the world to come"
||Moses 6:59
||Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; the phrase "the world to come" is absent from the Old Testament but occurs five times in the New Testament; other than the two just quoted, see Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 2:5; 6:5
|-
|"by the Spirit ye are justified"
||Moses 6:60
||Compare 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Timothy 3:16
|-
|"the Comforter," referring to the Holy Ghost
||Moses 6:61
||John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7
|-
|"the inner man"
||Moses 6:65
||Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16
|-
|"baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost"
||Moses 6:66
||Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16
|-
|"they were of one heart and one mind"
||Moses 7:18
||Compare Acts 4:32
|-
|"in the bosom of the Father," referring to heaven
||Moses 7:24, 47
||John 1:18 (note that JST deletes this phrase in this verse, perhaps implying that it entered the text sometime after its original composition)
|-
|"a great chain in his hand"
||Moses 7:26
||Revelation 20:1 (here the one holding the chain is an angel, unlike Moses 7:26, in which it is the devil)
|-
|commandment to "love one another"
||Moses 7:33
||John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10; 13:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12; 2 John 1:5
|-
|"without affection"
||Moses 7:33
||Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3
|-
|"the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world"
||Moses 7:47
||Compare Revelation 13:8 – "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," as a noun phrase); the term "the Lamb" is used as a title of the Messiah only in the New Testament and is distinctively Johannine (John 1:29, 36; twenty-seven instances in Revelation), and the words lamb and slain collocate only in Revelation 5:6, 12; 13:8.
|-
|"climb up" by a gate or door, as a metaphor of progression through Christ
||Moses 7:53
||John 10:1
|}

Video by The Interpreter Foundation.
<embedvideo service="youtube">o5c4XpcEL4U</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

This language can be explained by a few possible factors, not all mutually exclusive.

== "After the Manner of Their Language" – Doctrine & Covenants 1:24 ==
The first possibility to consider is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Moses into a vernacular that was comprehensible to his 19th century audience. Joseph's contemporaries were steeped in biblical language and used it even in everyday speech. The language of the New Testament was the natural way to discuss certain theological ideas.

{{s||D&C|1|24}} tells us that in revelation, God uses the language of his audience to communicate effectively" Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."<ref>See also {{s|2|Nephi|31|3}}.</ref>

== An early Christian context for the creation of the Book of Moses ==

Another possibility is that the Book of Moses was originally written in an early Christian context. That would place the composition of the Book of Moses in the 1st and 2nd century AD (about 1900 to 1800 years ago). Calabro outlined and defended this theory.<ref name="Calabro_An_early">{{Interpreter:Calabro:An Early Christian Context For The Book Of:2021}}</ref> Calabro argues that the Book of Moses can still preserve actual events from the life of Moses while placing the story in a Christian context describing it with Christian language. Thus, Joseph Smith could actually be restoring lost understanding of Moses—but that information has already been filtered through New Testament language.

One potential weakness of this theory is that it disrupts the understanding of many Church members about the Book of Moses, since it has more traditionally been seen as a restoration of Moses' writings in Genesis. However, Joseph Smith does not seem to have left a detailed account of what the Book of Moses represents. Joseph saw the JST as a restoration of "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."<ref>Joseph Smith, ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'', ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), 10–11.</ref>

This theory could also, in essence, be turned on its head, making an ancient version of the Book of Moses ''the source'' of subsequent Christian writing. Latter-day Saint author Jeff Lindsay and former BYU professor Noel Reynolds have theorized that the Book of Moses influenced the language of the Book of Mormon via the brass plates or another source.<ref>{{Interpreter:Reynolds:Strong Like Unto Moses The Case For Ancient:2021}} {{Interpreter:Reynolds:The Brass Plates Version Of Genesis:2019}}</ref>

== Similar messages to different nations ==
Speaking in reference to the Bible, the Book of Mormon has God announce that "I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/29.8?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8 2 Nephi 29:8]</ref>

It is certainly possible that the same concepts were revealed to Moses with similar language as that used in the New Testament.

== Conclusion—New Testament and the Book of Moses ==
There are therefore multiple models which would explain the similarity between the Book of Moses and the New Testament. Given that the Book of Moses claims to be a ''translation'', it is hardly strange that it would echo another translation (the KJV bible) that discusses the same ideas and issues.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe God as creating while the Book of Abraham describes Gods

2025-10-25T19:35:47Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

===Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love===

The scriptures affirm that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. A great debate in Christian history has been the ''nature'' of this oneness.

Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see {{s||John|17|22-23}}). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son.

This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

Did Adam Clarkes Bible Commentary influence the JST

2025-10-25T19:35:33Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation". In a summary of their research, Wayment and his research assistant wrote:

<blockquote>
Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term "translation" with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon then published a more detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU professor Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, "A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

Wayment outlined what he and Haley Wilson believed they had found:

<blockquote>
What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, "I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary." Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, "Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment," ''LDS Perspectives'', September 26, 2019, https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/.</ref>
</blockquote>

== Accusation of plagiarism ==
In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>
When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like "plagiarism" were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.

To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.

The reality of what happened is inspiring.

Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.

I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "10 Questions with Thomas Wayment," ''From the Desk of Kurt Manwaring'', January 2, 2019, https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/.</ref>
</blockquote>

Mark Ashurst McGee of the Joseph Smith Papers team made similar points as those of Wayment at the 2020 FAIR Conference held in Provo:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=WsQZTb2-GqQ&</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

== A rebuttal to the Adam Clarke hypothesis ==
In October 2020, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_P._Jackson Kent P. Jackson] (Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and a leading expert on the JST) responded to Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon's work.<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>

Jackson's paper identified several striking weakness to the Adam Clarke hypothesis. These include:

* "I have examined in detail every one of the JST passages they set forth as having been influenced by Clarke, and I have examined what Clarke wrote about those passages. I now believe that the conclusions they reached regarding those connections cannot be sustained. I do not believe that there is [Page 17] Adam Clarke-JST connection at all, and I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith ever used Clarke’s commentary in his revision of the Bible. None of the passages that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have set forward as examples, in my opinion, can withstand careful scrutiny."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|16-17}}
* "Too often Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon did not read carefully what Clarke wrote, and thus they frequently misinterpret him by ascribing intentions to him that cannot be sustained from his own words."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|28}}
* "There is much evidence in the JST to show that when the Prophet removed or replaced words, he had a tendency to save the deleted words and place them elsewhere, and this [Psalms 33:2] is a good example. All of these revisions are the opposite of what Clarke wanted."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|30}}
* [there are] "several examples in which Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon isolate one small similarity to something Clarke wrote in his commentary, but it is in a Bible passage where nothing in Clarke can account for the other changes Joseph Smith made."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}
* "In his commentary on the surrounding verses in Isaiah 34, Clarke makes several suggestions for revising the text. The fact that none of those suggestions are reflected in Joseph Smith’s translation adds to the unlikelihood that Clarke was the Prophet’s source here at all."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|33}}
* Regarding Mark 8, "Clarke provides what he felt was better wording for four passages in this chapter. Joseph Smith’s translations contains none of them. And Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in the chapter, some of them rather extensive, and none of them resemble anything in Clarke."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|39}}
* "There is even further reason to rule out Clarke as the source for this change [in John 2:24]. [Clarke's] commentary on John 2 has over 3,000 words, and he recommends changing the text in ten places. Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in this short chapter, but this is the only one that resembles anything in Clarke. Why, among Clarke’s thousands of words and scores of thoughtful insights, would Joseph Smith make only this one small revision of minimal consequence if he had Clarke’s commentary in front of him?"<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|40}}
* "Wayment states that Adam Clarke 'shaped Smith’s Bible revision in fundamental ways.' Even if all of the passages he attributes to Clarke were really influenced by Clarke, it seems difficult to justify such a sweeping statement, given the mostly minor rewordings that we have seen. If among the verses listed above are the best examples, as Wilson-Lemmon states,102 then the Adam Clarke-JST theory can be dismissed out of hand."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|53}}

Jackson concluded that "none of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|15}}

Similarly, Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin L. Barney, who has published on the JST in the past,<ref>See, for instance, Kevin L. Barney, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/a-commentary-on-joseph-smiths-revision-of-first-corinthians/ A Commentary on Joseph Smith’s Revision of First Corinthians]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 53, no. 2 (Summer 2020): 57–105.</ref> wrote that the chances for the Adam Clarke commentary influencing the production of the JST are "de minimis or negligible."<ref>Kevin Barney, "On Secondary Source Influence in the JST," ''By Common Consent'', April 16, 2021, https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/04/16/on-secondary-source-infuence-in-the-jst/</ref>

To be sure, neither Jackson nor Barney are opposed to the idea that there could be secondary source influence on the production of the JST. Thus, this is a faith-neutral issue for both.

At the 2022 FAIR Conference held in Provo, UT, Professor Kent Jackson responded to the theory directly and in depth.<ref>{{Jackson:Was Joseph Smith Influenced By:2022 FAIR Conference}}</ref>

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=yeJDs8xVCcA</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

Why does the Church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official bible

2025-10-25T19:35:07Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

The answer to this question is complex. There is no ''single'' reason; instead, there are many:

#There is no revelation that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would require both prophetic instruction and a sustaining vote of the membership.
#The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches; Brigham Young feared that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn't accurately reflect Joseph Smith's original translation. Given that the Utah Church could not verify the translation, along with the fact that they did not own the copyright, kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. The LDS interest in the JST came much later, largely due to the scholarly work of Robert Matthews on the manuscripts in the early 1970s, and apostle Bruce R. McConkie's embrace of the JST.
#From a practical sense, adoption of the JST could cause a stumbling block for converts. The doctrine of Joseph Smith, modern prophets, and modern books of scripture are already difficult for many Christians to consider. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.
#Portions of the JST ''have'' been canonized: Our [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/contents Book of Moses] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_m/contents Joseph Smith—Matthew] are excerpts from the JST.

In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work—it included multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST. (Ironically, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before critics of the Church began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Lavina Fielding Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible]|date=Oct 1979|start=9}}</ref>)

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, "The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration," Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/the-bible-and-its-role-in-the-restoration?lang=eng}}; "Plain and Precious Things Restored," Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/07/plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng}}; "Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’," Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/a-greater-portrayal-of-the-master?lang=eng}}; Monte S. Nyman, "Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible," Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/restoring-plain-and-precious-parts-the-role-of-latter-day-scriptures-in-helping-us-understand-the-bible?lang=eng}}</ref>

Among Church leaders, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was especially vocal about the JST. In 1980, he said:

<blockquote>
[Joseph] translated the Book of Abraham and what is called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This latter is a marvelously inspired work; it is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. By pure revelation, he inserted many new concepts and views as, for instance, the material in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis about Melchizedek. Some chapters he rewrote and realigned so that the things said in them take on a new perspective and meaning, such as the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the first chapter in the gospel of John.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Bruce R. McConkie|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/06/this-generation-shall-have-my-word-through-you?lang=eng This Generation Shall Have My Word Through You]|date=June 1980|start=54}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1985 Elder McConkie told members during a satellite broadcast:

<blockquote>
As all of us should know, the Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version as it is sometimes called, stands as one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. The added truths he placed in the Bible and the corrections he made raise the resultant work to the same high status as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. It is true that he did not complete the work, but it was far enough along that he intended to publish it in its present form in his lifetime.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Bruce R. McConkie|article=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/come-hear-the-voice-of-the-lord?lang=eng Come: Hear the Voice of the Lord]|date=December 1985|start=54}}</ref>
</blockquote>

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church's official Bible/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

Why is JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham

2025-10-25T19:34:43Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

=== The Bible does support plurality of gods ===

When God gives new insight and revelation, he doesn't typically "rewrite" all scripture that has gone before: He simply adds to it.

The creation account in the Book of Abraham supports a plurality of gods. Critics claim that the Bible does not support this. However, there are two errors in the assumption that the Bible does not support a plurality of gods.

=== There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis ===

Error #1: It is debatable that the unedited King James Version of Genesis truly only includes "one God." There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis:
<blockquote>

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become ''as one of us'', to know good and evil.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}})
</blockquote>

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

=== The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, the Book of Moses, actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages ===

Error #2: The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages. The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (which is the simply the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis) has many examples of multiple divine personages:

<blockquote>
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 ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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? ({{s||Moses|1|13}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|16-17}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; ({{s||Moses|1|24}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|33}})
</blockquote>

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" ({{s||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.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Viele oder einen einzigen Schöpfer der Erde?]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[es:Pregunta: Cuando José Smith realizó su traducción inspirada de la Biblia, ¿por qué no reescribió el relato de la creación en Génesis para leer más en el Libro de Abraham?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV and the JST of the Bible

2025-10-25T19:34:22Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

==Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other==

Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other. Critics ask why Joseph's earlier work (i.e., the Book of Mormon) generally followed the King James Version of the Bible closely while his later work (i.e., the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible) did not. Critics ask which translation did Joseph get right, implying that one is wrong, hence bringing his prophetic calling into question. Critics generally cite any of a number of passages from Matthew 5-7 from the King James Version and Joseph Smith Translation and 3 Nephi 12-14 from the Book of Mormon. A much celebrated example is:

{{scripture||Matthew|6|25-27}} (King James Version)
: 25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
: 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
: 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

{{s|3|Nephi|13|25-27}}) (Book of Mormon)
: 25 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
: 26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
: 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Matthew 6:25-27 (Joseph Smith Translation)
: 25 And, again, I say unto you, go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.
: 26 Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.
: 27 And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.

==Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations==

Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations. This is not unique or unusual in scripture—even the Bible. Hence, neither the Book of Mormon nor the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible can be discounted because of seeming discrepancies with each other or with the King James Version of the Bible.

Joseph Smith had different purposes in mind when bringing forth the Book of Mormon and the Joseph smith Translation. His purpose in bringing forth the Book of Mormon was to witness "the reality that "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations". Departing from the King James Version, i.e., the translation familiar to those who would become the Book of Mormon's first readers, would have been a stumbling block in achieving its purpose. On the other hand, Joseph's later purpose in bringing forth the Joseph Smith Translation is largely understood to have been one of redaction, or inspired commentary—to resolve confusion regarding biblical interpretation<ref>{{Dialogue|author=Kevin Barney|article=[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_87.pdf The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible]|vol=19|num=3|date=Fall 1986|pages=85-102}}</ref> Hence the different wording, and in some cases, even content.

==Biblical Parallel==

Gleason Archer, well known Evangelical Christian and the Author of a highly respected book called "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", addresses the issue of Paul citing deficient Greek Septuagint translations that appear in our New Testaments today in lieu of better translations of the Old Testament he could have come up with. Archer says:

<blockquote>
Suppose Paul had chosen to work out a new, more accurate translation into Greek directly from Hebrew. Might not the Bereans have said in reply, "that’s not the way we find it in our Bible. How do we know you have not slanted your different rendering here and there in order to favor you new teaching about Christ?" In order to avoid suspicion and misunderstanding, it was imperative for the apostles and evangelists to stick with the Septuagint in their preaching and teaching, both oral and written.

We, like the first-century apostles, resort to these standard translations to teach our people in terms they can verify by resorting to their own Bibles, yet admittedly, none of these translations is completely free of faults. We use them nevertheless, for the purpose of more effective communication than if we were to translate directly from the Hebrew or Greek.<ref>Gleason L. Archer, ''An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'' (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1982), 31. ISBN 0310435706.</ref>
</blockquote>

Archer's point is that it is more important in certain settings that Paul's writings be ''familiar'' rather than ''100% precise''.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

{{To learn more box:Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Discrepancies Between Translations: Book of Mormon, King James Version, Joseph Smith Translation/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Viele oder einen einzigen Schöpfer der Erde?]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/Relationship to the Book of Mormon]]
[[es:Pregunta: Cuando José Smith realizó su traducción inspirada de la Biblia, ¿por qué no reescribió el relato de la creación en Génesis para leer más en el Libro de Abraham?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo explicamos la posibilidad de múltiples autores del Libro de Isaías y el Libro de Mormón?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los traductores académicos copiar las traducciones de otros documentos para utilizar como un "texto base"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué el Libro de Mormón coincide con la versión King James (KJV) de la Biblia tan de cerca?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué muchas de las citas de Isaías en el Libro de Mormón idénticas a las de la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como é que vamos explicar múltipla "Isaías" e do Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Não tradutores acadêmicos copiar traduções de outros documentos para usar como "texto base"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que muitas das citações de Isaías no Livro de Mórmon são idênticas às da Bíblia do Rei James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que o Livro de Mórmon coincide tão rigorosamente com a Versão do Rei James?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

Was the JST ever completed

2025-10-25T19:33:46Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

As one LDS scholar noted:
<blockquote>
"The Bible Dictionary in the English LDS Bible states that Joseph Smith 'continued to make modifications [in the translation] until his death in 1844.' Based on information available in the past, that was a reasonable assumption, and I taught it for many years. But we now know that it is not accurate. The best evidence points to the conclusion that when the Prophet called the translation 'finished,' he really meant it, and no changes were made in it after the summer (or possibly the fall) of 1833."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible," in Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 149–160 (link).</ref>
</blockquote>

Joseph did not view his revisions to the Bible as a "once and for all" or "finally completed translation" goal—he simply didn't see scripture that way. The translation could be acceptable for purposes, but still subject to later clarification or elaboration. Joseph was, however, collecting funds to publish the JST—which indicates that he believed it was ready for public use and consumption.

George Q. Cannon reported that Brigham Young heard Joseph speak about further revisions:
<blockquote>
We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fullness at the time of which we write.<ref>George Q. Cannon, ''The Life of Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1888), 142.</ref>
</blockquote>

We again see that the JST or any other scripture is not the ultimate source of LDS doctrine—having a living prophet is what is most vital.

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

What was the translation procedure to produce the JST

2025-10-25T19:33:17Z

ReedComire:

Kent Jackson reports:
{{Header}}

<blockquote>
The original manuscripts of the JST, as well as the Bible used in the revision, still exist. They show the following process at work: Joseph Smith had his Bible in front of him, likely in his lap or on a table, and he dictated the translation to his scribes, who recorded what they heard him say. ... there are no parts of the translation in which the scribes "copied out the text of the Bible." The evidence on the manuscripts is clear that this did not happen. The Prophet dictated without punctuation and verse breaks, and those features were inserted as a separate process after the text was complete. [Some have argued that after supposedly] copying of text out of the Bible, the scribes then inserted the "numerous strikethroughs of words and phrases, interlinear insertions, and omissions," and thus Joseph Smith’s revised text was born. But the overwhelming majority of the revisions were in the original dictation and are simply part of the original writing on the manuscripts. There are indeed strikeouts and interlinear insertions on the manuscripts, but they came during a second pass through parts of the manuscripts and comprise only a minority of the revisions Joseph Smith made.<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|20-21}}
</blockquote>

[[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST Main Page]]

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

2025-10-25T19:31:29Z

ReedComire:

Why is JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham

2025-10-25T19:20:23Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

=== The Bible does support plurality of gods ===

When God gives new insight and revelation, he doesn't typically "rewrite" all scripture that has gone before: He simply adds to it.

The creation account in the Book of Abraham supports a plurality of gods. Critics claim that the Bible does not support this. However, there are two errors in the assumption that the Bible does not support a plurality of gods.

=== There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis ===

Error #1: It is debatable that the unedited King James Version of Genesis truly only includes "one God." There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis:
<blockquote>

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become ''as one of us'', to know good and evil.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}})
</blockquote>

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

=== The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, the Book of Moses, actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages ===

Error #2: The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages. The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (which is the simply the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis) has many examples of multiple divine personages:

<blockquote>
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 ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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? ({{s||Moses|1|13}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|16-17}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; ({{s||Moses|1|24}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|33}})
</blockquote>

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" ({{s||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.


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Viele oder einen einzigen Schöpfer der Erde?]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[es:Pregunta: Cuando José Smith realizó su traducción inspirada de la Biblia, ¿por qué no reescribió el relato de la creación en Génesis para leer más en el Libro de Abraham?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-25T19:13:55Z

ReedComire:

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-25T19:13:11Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

Critics note that one verse in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, Genesis 50:33, is a verse that prophesies about Joseph Smith. This verse does not exist in Genesis the world has today, which ends with verse 50:26.

Critics complain this is a “self-certifying prophecy”. They say Joseph made up a verse which talks about himself, which does not exist in today’s Bible, to convince others that he was a prophet.

===Genesis 50:33 is Not Scripture===

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) is a compilation of Joseph's writings about various Biblical verses. (Here is more about the [[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST from FAIR)]], and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]).

Although some of the JST was canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST as a whole is not. JST Genesis 50:33 appears to be a restoration of missing information or missing scripture, but we don’t know its purpose for sure. Joseph did not write this as a specific verse of scripture originally; this was added later.

===Joseph Smith did not use this to market himself===
Joseph Smith did not use this one comment to publicly market himself as a prophet. Otherwise, he would have published it and discussed it frequently. The entire JST was first published in 1867, long after Joseph died, by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ). Not until 1979 did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JST (with this verse) as part of the footnotes in the King James Bible.

A similar verse in {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}} exists, but Joseph did not use that as a marketing tool either.

===Jesus also referred to missing scripture about Himself===
Jesus also referred to missing scripture which talked about Himself: {{s||John|8|56}}, {{s||John|7|38}}, {{s||John|7|42}}.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

2025-10-25T19:06:20Z

ReedComire:

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text

2025-10-25T19:00:37Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}<ref>Video published by BYU Religious Education.</ref>

The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text

2025-10-25T19:00:15Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}} <ref>Video published by BYU Religious Education.</ref>

The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text

2025-10-25T18:59:22Z

ReedComire:

{{Header}}

Video published by BYU Religious Education.
<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text

2025-10-25T18:51:15Z

ReedComire: Created page with "== Is the JST intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text? == Video published by BYU Religious Education. <embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}} The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text. As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some exten..."

== Is the JST intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text? ==

Video published by BYU Religious Education.
<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

Wiki

2025-10-22T04:08:38Z

ReedComire:

==How to edit the Wiki==

'''Wiki Training September 2025'''
<embedvideo service="youtube">yv7SGbwCOY8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

===Creating a Page===
To create a page, copy/paste this URL into your browser: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/NameOfNewPage</nowiki>

Replace "NameOfNewPage" with the name of your new page. You will be prompted to create a new page. If you want spaces to appear in the name of the page (e.g., your page will be "Brigham Young and Plural Marriage"), then use underscores instead of spaces in the URL (e.g., <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Plural_Marriage</nowiki>).

Note that there are two wikis: "answers" and "evidences". If you are adding a page to the "evidences" wiki, you will replace the "answers" with "evidences" in the URL above. Any internal navigation will be only within the wiki you are in.

===Editing a Page===
Find the page you want to edit, and click "Edit" on the left menu, or anywhere else you see an "edit" link. You often will want to look at other similar pages to see how they format their pages.

===Headers===
To create a header for a page like "Headers" above, use "=" signs (above uses size 3):

<nowiki>= Header Size 1 =</nowiki>

<nowiki>== Header Size 2 ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>=== Header Size 3 ===</nowiki>

<nowiki>==== Header Size 4 ====</nowiki>

If you want the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL) to appear as a bolded header, use this at the top:

<nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>

===Formatting Scriptures===
<nowiki>{{s||John|7|42}}</nowiki> results in: {{s||John|7|42}}

<nowiki>{{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}</nowiki> results in: {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}

===Quoting===
To quote something, use <nowiki><blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote></nowiki>

This is the result:

<blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote>

===Linking Outside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to the outside internet, use this format:

<nowiki>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]</nowiki>

(Notice the first space separates where the link goes from what is displayed.)

This shows a link like this: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]

===Linking Inside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to a page within the wiki you are in:

<nowiki>[[Brigham Young|Click here for the awesome Brigham Young Main Page]]</nowiki>

[[Brigham Young|Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page]]

So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

===Parent and Child Pages===
The old style was to add all content for a topic on one gigantic page that scrolls forever. Then we discovered you could import the contents of an independent sub-page onto your gigantic page as if it was already together with "transclusion":
<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>

However we are moving away from this for a few reasons.

It's better to have a main page with a summary of the topic, then links to additional sub pages (see "Linking Inside the Wiki"). This will be better for search results, and you can use things like <nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>.

===Redirecting===
If there is an older and a more updated page, it's better to "redirect" to the new one, so the user who finds the old page will be automatically sent to the new page.

To do this, type this at the top of the page: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[pagename]]</nowiki>

===Navigation Boxes===
If you see a navigation box like this:

{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

Click on the "V" on the left to edit.

To reference an existing navigation box, type this: <nowiki>{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}</nowiki>

===More Formatting Options===
This wiki software is called "MediaWiki". If you want to see many more formatting options, go to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting MediaWiki website].

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2025-10-19T17:21:56Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus
|H=The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus
|S=
|L1=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?
|L2=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?
|L3=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?
|L4=Is Jesus a Created Being?
|L5=Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: The "sameness of Jesus" and humanity
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?}}
{{:Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?}}
{{:Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?}}
{{:Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:1:Sameness_of_Jesus'_humanity}}

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus/CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

[[de:Jesus Christus/Heilige der Letzten Tage verehren einen anderen Jesus]]
[[pt:Jesus Cristo/O "Mormon" versus o "cristão" Jesus]]
[[es:Jesucristo/El Jesucristo "mormón" y el Jesucristo "cristiano"]]

Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being

2025-10-19T17:20:47Z

ReedComire:

==Is Jesus a Created Being?==
Some Christian critics make the claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe “Jesus is a created being”.
There is not an official church statement which uses this phrase. This is an interpretation of our beliefs, said in a way which makes us look weird.

Traditional Christians believe in the Trinity, that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same substance, and were God in the beginning of the universe. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings. We believe Jesus is the Son of God, both His physical body on earth, as well as His spirit. So, if Jesus is a son of God the Father, therefore He had to be “born” at some point, so critics claim He is then a “created being”.

===When Was The Beginning===
First, understand the Biblical writers probably did not comprehend the idea of other planets and a universe beyond Earth. To them, the Earth was the universe. This may have affected their concept of eternity. Jesus definitely was God and “in the beginning” as far as the earth is concerned.

The question becomes what happened at the beginning of time? None of us can comprehend such a thing. Creedal Christians believe in creatio ex nihilo, which is creation of the universe out of nothing. We do not believe this.

===Intelligences and Spirits===
We believe intelligences or spirits have always existed. Therefore Jesus’ spirit has always existed, so Jesus has always existed, as far as we know.

<blockquote>The Spirit of Man is not a created being…It existed from Eternity and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal. – Joseph Smith<ref>https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/3</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. - {{s||D&C|93|29}} </blockquote>

<blockquote>…spirits … have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. {{s||Abraham|3|18}}</blockquote>

The word “intelligence” is not always used the same in the scriptures. Sometimes an “intelligence” is equated with a “spirit”. Some people believe “intelligence” is our conscience within our spirit bodies. It is taught that humans who become exalted could somehow have spirit children.

<blockquote>Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was… {{s||Abraham|3|22}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>…which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. {{s||D&C|132|19}}</blockquote>

The logic follows perhaps Jesus’s spirit body, at some point after the beginning of the universe, maybe was “organized” or “created”? This is the stretch that critics make. Some also speculate having spirit children is like an adoption of something which already exists, not creation. But we do not know for sure.<ref>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/23/come-follow-me-week-35-doctrine-and-covenants-93</ref>

==="Jesus is Eternal" Scriptures===
The title page of the Book of Mormon, calls Jesus Christ "the Eternal God," and so does 2 Nephi 26:12, Mosiah 15:1–4, Mosiah 16:15, Alma 11:38–40, Alma 34:14. Thus, however the word “eternal” is correctly defined: “in the beginning of the universe”, “in the beginning of the earth” or something else, Jesus was still God in the beginning and was not “created”.

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2025-10-19T17:17:46Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus
|H=The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus
|S=
|L1=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?
|L2=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?
|L3=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?
|L4=Question: Is Jesus a Created Being
|L5=Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: The "sameness of Jesus" and humanity
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?}}
{{:Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?}}
{{:Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?}}
{{:Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:1:Sameness_of_Jesus'_humanity}}

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus/CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

[[de:Jesus Christus/Heilige der Letzten Tage verehren einen anderen Jesus]]
[[pt:Jesus Cristo/O "Mormon" versus o "cristão" Jesus]]
[[es:Jesucristo/El Jesucristo "mormón" y el Jesucristo "cristiano"]]

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2025-10-19T17:07:08Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus
|H=The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus
|S=
|L1=Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?
|L2=Question: How does the Latter-day Saint view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?
|L3=Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?
|L4=Question: Is_Jesus_a_Created_Being?
|L5=Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: The "sameness of Jesus" and humanity
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians?}}
{{:Question: How does the Mormon view of the Atonement compare to the evangelical Christian view?}}
{{:Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?}}
{{:Jesus_Christ/Is_Jesus_a_Created_Being}}
{{:Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:1:Sameness_of_Jesus'_humanity}}

{{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus/CriticalSources}}
{{endnotes sources}}

[[de:Jesus Christus/Heilige der Letzten Tage verehren einen anderen Jesus]]
[[pt:Jesus Cristo/O "Mormon" versus o "cristão" Jesus]]
[[es:Jesucristo/El Jesucristo "mormón" y el Jesucristo "cristiano"]]

Jesus Christ/Is Jesus a Created Being

2025-10-19T17:00:48Z

ReedComire: Is Jesus is a Created Being?

==Is Jesus is a Created Being?==
Some Christian critics make the claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe “Jesus is a created being”.
There is not an official church statement which uses this phrase. This is an interpretation of our beliefs, said in a way which makes us look weird.

Traditional Christians believe in the Trinity, that God the Father and Jesus Christ have the same substance, and were God in the beginning of the universe. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings. We believe Jesus is the Son of God, both His physical body on earth, as well as His spirit. So, if Jesus is a son of God the Father, therefore He had to be “born” at some point, so critics claim He is then a “created being”.

===When Was The Beginning===
First, understand the Biblical writers probably did not comprehend the idea of other planets and a universe beyond Earth. To them, the Earth was the universe. This may have affected their concept of eternity. Jesus definitely was God and “in the beginning” as far as the earth is concerned.

The question becomes what happened at the beginning of time? None of us can comprehend such a thing. Creedal Christians believe in creatio ex nihilo, which is creation of the universe out of nothing. We do not believe this.

===Intelligences and Spirits===
We believe intelligences or spirits have always existed. Therefore Jesus’ spirit has always existed, so Jesus has always existed, as far as we know.

<blockquote>The Spirit of Man is not a created being…It existed from Eternity and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal. – Joseph Smith<ref>https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-4-august-1839-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/3</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. - {{s||D&C|93|29}} </blockquote>

<blockquote>…spirits … have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. {{s||Abraham|3|18}}</blockquote>

The word “intelligence” is not always used the same in the scriptures. Sometimes an “intelligence” is equated with a “spirit”. Some people believe “intelligence” is our conscience within our spirit bodies. It is taught that humans who become exalted could somehow have spirit children.

<blockquote>Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was… {{s||Abraham|3|22}}</blockquote>

<blockquote>…which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. {{s||D&C|132|19}}</blockquote>

The logic follows perhaps Jesus’s spirit body, at some point after the beginning of the universe, maybe was “organized” or “created”? This is the stretch that critics make. Some also speculate having spirit children is like an adoption of something which already exists, not creation. But we do not know for sure.<ref>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/23/come-follow-me-week-35-doctrine-and-covenants-93</ref>

==="Jesus is Eternal" Scriptures===
The title page of the Book of Mormon, calls Jesus Christ "the Eternal God," and so does 2 Nephi 26:12, Mosiah 15:1–4, Mosiah 16:15, Alma 11:38–40, Alma 34:14. Thus, however the word “eternal” is correctly defined: “in the beginning of the universe”, “in the beginning of the earth” or something else, Jesus was still God in the beginning and was not “created”.

Wiki

2025-10-19T16:31:05Z

ReedComire:

==How to edit the Wiki==

'''Wiki Training September 2025'''
<embedvideo service="youtube">yv7SGbwCOY8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

===Creating a Page===
To create a page, copy/paste this URL into your browser: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/NameOfNewPage</nowiki>

Replace "NameOfNewPage" with the name of your new page. You will be prompted to create a new page. If you want spaces to appear in the name of the page (e.g., your page will be "Brigham Young and Plural Marriage"), then use underscores instead of spaces in the URL (e.g., <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Plural_Marriage</nowiki>).

Note that there are two wikis: "answers" and "evidences". If you are adding a page to the "evidences" wiki, you will replace the "answers" with "evidences" in the URL above. Any internal navigation will be only within the wiki you are in.

===Linking to a Page===
All pages must be referenced by some existing page, else they will not be found when searching. To import or reference a page within a parent page, use this syntax:

<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>

===Editing a Page===
Find the page you want to edit, and click "Edit" on the left menu, or anywhere else you see an "edit" link. You often will want to look at other similar pages to see how they format their pages.

===Headers===
To create a header for a page like "Headers" above, use "=" signs (above uses size 3):

<nowiki>= Header Size 1 =</nowiki>

<nowiki>== Header Size 2 ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>=== Header Size 3 ===</nowiki>

<nowiki>==== Header Size 4 ====</nowiki>

If you want the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL) to appear as a bolded header, use this at the top:

<nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>

===Formatting Scriptures===
<nowiki>{{s||John|7|42}}</nowiki> results in: {{s||John|7|42}}

<nowiki>{{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}</nowiki> results in: {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}

===Quoting===
To quote something, use <nowiki><blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote></nowiki>

This is the result:

<blockquote>"Put the quote here"<ref>Put the reference here</ref></blockquote>

===Linking Outside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to the outside internet, use this format:

<nowiki>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]</nowiki>

(Notice the first space separates where the link goes from what is displayed.)

This shows a link like this: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]

===Linking Inside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to a page within the wiki you are in:

<nowiki>[[Brigham Young|Click here for the awesome Brigham Young Main Page]]</nowiki>

[[Brigham Young|Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page]]

So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

===Redirecting to another page===
If the page you are on is old and there is a more updated page, it's better to "redirect" to it, and make it such that old page content will go to the new page when searched.

To do this, type this at the top of the page: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[pagename]]</nowiki>

===To edit a nagvigation box===
If you see a navigation box like this:

{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

Click on the "V" on the left to edit.

To reference an existing navigation box, type this: <nowiki>{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}</nowiki>

===More Formatting Options===
This wiki software is called "MediaWiki". If you want to see many more formatting options, go to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting MediaWiki website].

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-17T20:02:54Z

ReedComire: /* Was Joseph Smith a "Self-Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33? */

==Was Joseph Smith a "Self-Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?==

Critics note that one verse in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, Genesis 50:33, is a verse that prophesies about Joseph Smith. This verse does not exist in Genesis the world has today, which ends with verse 50:26.

Critics complain this is a “self-certifying prophecy”. They say Joseph made up a verse which talks about himself, which does not exist in today’s Bible, to convince others that he was a prophet.

===Genesis 50:33 is Not Scripture===

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) is a compilation of Joseph's writings about various Biblical verses. (Here is more about the [[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST from FAIR)]], and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]).

Although some of the JST was canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST as a whole is not. JST Genesis 50:33 appears to be a restoration of missing information or missing scripture, but we don’t know its purpose for sure. Joseph did not write this as a specific verse of scripture originally; this was added later.

===Joseph Smith did not use this to market himself===
Joseph Smith did not use this one comment to publicly market himself as a prophet. Otherwise, he would have published it and discussed it frequently. The entire JST was first published in 1867, long after Joseph died, by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ). Not until 1979 did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JST (with this verse) as part of the footnotes in the King James Bible.

A similar verse in {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}} exists, but Joseph did not use that as a marketing tool either.

===Jesus also referred to missing scripture about Himself===
Jesus also referred to missing scripture which talked about Himself: {{s||John|8|56}}, {{s||John|7|38}}, {{s||John|7|42}}.

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-17T19:59:58Z

ReedComire: /* Was Joseph Smith a "Self-Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33? */

==Was Joseph Smith a "Self-Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?==

Critics note that one verse in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, Genesis 50:33, is a verse that prophesies about Joseph Smith. This verse does not exist in Genesis the world has today, which ends with verse 50:26.

Critics complain this is a “self-certifying prophecy”. They say Joseph made up a verse which talks about himself, which does not exist in today’s Bible, to convince others that he was a prophet.

===Genesis 50:33 is Not Scripture===

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) is a compilation of Joseph's writings about various Biblical verses. (Here is more about the [[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST from FAIR)]], and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]).

Although some of the JST was canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST as a whole is not. JST Genesis 50:33 appears to be a restoration of missing information or missing scripture, but we don’t know its purpose for sure. Joseph did not write this as a specific verse of scripture originally; this was added later.

===Joseph Smith did not use this to market himself===
Joseph Smith did not use this one comment to publicly market himself as a prophet. Otherwise, he would have published it and discussed it frequently. The entire JST was first published in 1867, long after Joseph died, by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ). Not until 1979 did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JST (this verse) as part of the footnotes in the King James Bible.

A similar verse in {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}} exists, but Joseph did not use that as a marketing tool either.

===Jesus also referred to missing scripture about Himself===
Jesus also referred to missing scripture which talked about Himself: {{s||John|8|56}}, {{s||John|7|38}}, {{s||John|7|42}}.

Wiki

2025-10-15T05:05:41Z

ReedComire:

==How to edit the Wiki==

'''Wiki Training September 2025'''
<embedvideo service="youtube">yv7SGbwCOY8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

===Creating a Page===
To create a page, copy/paste this URL into your browser: <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/NameOfNewPage</nowiki>

Replace "NameOfNewPage" with the name of your new page. You will be prompted to create a new page. If you want spaces to appear in the name of the page (e.g., your page will be "Brigham Young and Plural Marriage"), then use underscores instead of spaces in the URL (e.g., <nowiki>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Brigham_Young_and_Plural_Marriage</nowiki>).

Note that there are two wikis: "answers" and "evidences". If you are adding a page to the "evidences" wiki, you will replace the "answers" with "evidences" in the URL above. Any internal navigation will be only within the wiki you are in.

===Linking to a Page===
All pages must be referenced by some existing page, else they will not be found when searching. To import or reference a page within a parent page, use this syntax:

<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>

===Editing a Page===
Find the page you want to edit, and click "Edit" on the left menu, or anywhere else you see an "edit" link. You often will want to look at other similar pages to see how they format their pages.

===Headers===
To create a header for a page like "Headers" above, use "=" signs (above uses size 3):

<nowiki>= Header Size 1 =</nowiki>

<nowiki>== Header Size 2 ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>=== Header Size 3 ===</nowiki>

<nowiki>==== Header Size 4 ====</nowiki>

If you want the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL) to appear as a bolded header, use this at the top:

<nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>

===Formatting Scriptures===
<nowiki>{{s||John|7|42}}</nowiki> results in: {{s||John|7|42}}

<nowiki>{{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}</nowiki> results in: {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}}

===Linking Outside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to the outside internet, use this format:

<nowiki>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]</nowiki>

(Notice the first space separates where the link goes from what is displayed.)

This shows a link like this: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]

===Linking Inside the Wiki===
To make a hyperlink to a page within the wiki you are in:

<nowiki>[[Brigham Young|Click here for the awesome Brigham Young Main Page]]</nowiki>

[[Brigham Young|Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page]]

So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

===Redirecting to another page===
If the page you are on is old and there is a more updated page, it's better to "redirect" to it, and make it such that old page content will go to the new page when searched.

To do this, type this at the top of the page: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[pagename]]</nowiki>

===To edit a nagvigation box===
If you see a navigation box like this:

{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}

Click on the "V" on the left to edit.

To reference an existing navigation box, type this: <nowiki>{{Navigation:Brigham Young}}</nowiki>

===More Formatting Options===
This wiki software is called "MediaWiki". If you want to see many more formatting options, go to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting MediaWiki website].

JST Genesis 50 33

2025-10-15T05:01:05Z

ReedComire:

==Was Joseph Smith a "Self-Certifying Prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?==

Critics note that one verse in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, Genesis 50:33, is a verse that prophesies about Joseph Smith. This verse does not exist in Genesis the world has today, which ends with verse 50:26.

Critics complain this is a “self-certifying prophecy”. They say Joseph made up a verse which talks about himself, which does not exist in today’s Bible, to convince others that he was a prophet.

===Genesis 50:33 is Not Scripture===

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) is a compilation of Joseph's writings about various Biblical verses. (Here is more about the [[The_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible|JST from FAIR)]], and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng JST from the church website]).

Although some of the JST was canonized as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST as a whole is not. JST Genesis 50:33 appears to be a restoration of missing information or missing scripture, but we don’t know its purpose for sure. Joseph did not write this as a specific verse of scripture originally; this was added later.

===Joseph Smith did not use this to market himself===
Joseph Smith did not use this one comment to publicly market himself as a prophet. Otherwise, he would have published it and discussed it frequently. The entire JST was first published in 1867, long after Joseph died, by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ). Not until 1979 did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publish the JST as part of the footnotes in the King James Bible.

A similar verse in {{s|2|Nephi|3|14-15}} exists, but Joseph did not use that as a marketing tool either.

===Jesus also referred to missing scripture about Himself===
Jesus also referred to missing scripture which talked about Himself: {{s||John|8|56}}, {{s||John|7|38}}, {{s||John|7|42}}.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

2025-10-15T05:00:19Z

ReedComire:

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Joseph Smith}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}

= What is the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)? =
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.

The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng JST on the church website].

== Is the JST intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text? ==

Video published by BYU Religious Education.
<embedvideo service=youtube>bZmbsumMDR8</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.

As [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng expressed] in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."

Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:

* The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it ''is'' intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".

* One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.

:The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.

==Matthews: "To regard the New Translation...as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text"==

In describing the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), the leading expert, Robert J. Matthews, said:
<blockquote>
To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories:
#Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
#Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
#Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8).
#Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.

The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the New Translation as a divinely inspired document.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 253.</ref>
</blockquote>

The same author later observed:

<blockquote>
It would be informative to consider various meanings of the word translate. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: "To turn from one language into another retaining the sense"; also, "To express in other words, to paraphrase." It gives another meaning as, "To interpret, explain, expound the significance of." Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language. If people are unfamiliar with certain terminology in their own tongue, they will need an explanation. The explanation may be longer than the original, yet the original had all the meaning, either stated or implied. In common everyday discourse, when we hear something stated ambiguously or in highly technical terms, we ask the speaker to translate it for us. It is not expected that the response must come in another language, but only that the first statement be made clear. The speaker's new statement is a form of translation because it follows the basic purpose and intent of the word translation, which is to render something in understandable form…Every translation is an interpretation—a version. The translation of language cannot be a mechanical operation … Translation is a cognitive and functional process because there is not one word in every language to match with exact words in every other language. Gender, case, tense, terminology, idiom, word order, obsolete and archaic words, and shades of meaning—all make translation an interpretive process.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, "Joseph Smith as Translator," in ''Joseph Smith, The Prophet, The Man'', edited by Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1993), 80, 84.</ref>
</blockquote>

== What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts? ==
The Joseph Smith Translation does claim to be, in part, a restoration of the original content of the Bible. This may have been done (a) by reproducing the ''text'' as it was originally written down; or, (b) it may have been about reproducing the original ''intent'' and ''clarifying the message'' of the original author of the text in question. We are not entirely sure, but in either case the JST does claim to be, in part, a restoration.

Critics who fault the JST because it doesn't match known manuscripts of the Bible are being too hasty: we do not have the original manuscripts of any text of the Bible, nor do we know the exact nature of every change made in the JST and whether a particular change was meant to be a restoration of original text.

Kent P. Jackson, another leading expert on the JST, wrote:

<blockquote>
Some may choose to find fault with the Joseph Smith Translation because they do not see correlations between the text on ancient manuscripts. The supposition would be that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. This reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that extant ancient manuscripts accurately reproduce the original test, and both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon teach otherwise.<ref>"History of Joseph Smith," 592; 1 Nephi 13:28; see 13:23–29.</ref> Because the earliest Old and New Testament manuscripts date from long after the original documents were written, we no longer have original manuscripts to compare with Joseph Smith's revisions. The second problem with faulting the JST because it does not match ancient texts is that to do so assumes that all the revisions Joseph Smith made were intended to restore original text. We have no record of him making that claim, and even in places in which the JST would restore original text it would do so not in Hebrew or Greek but in Modern English and in the scriptural idiom of early nineteenth-century America. Revisions that fit in others of the categories listed above are likewise in modern English, "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language" ({{s||D&C|1|24}})/<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.</ref>
</blockquote>

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 is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary". The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng lds.org] "The JST '''''to some extent''''' assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible". Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding. In general, it 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.

The Book of Moses was produced as a result of Joseph's efforts to clarify the Bible. This portion of the work was canonized and is part of the Pearl of Great Price. There was no attempt to canonize the rest of the JST then, or now.

== What was the translation procedure used by Joseph Smith and his scribes to produce the JST? ==

Kent Jackson reports:

<blockquote>
The original manuscripts of the JST, as well as the Bible used in the revision, still exist. They show the following process at work: Joseph Smith had his Bible in front of him, likely in his lap or on a table, and he dictated the translation to his scribes, who recorded what they heard him say. ... there are no parts of the translation in which the scribes "copied out the text of the Bible." The evidence on the manuscripts is clear that this did not happen. The Prophet dictated without punctuation and verse breaks, and those features were inserted as a separate process after the text was complete. [Some have argued that after supposedly] copying of text out of the Bible, the scribes then inserted the "numerous strikethroughs of words and phrases, interlinear insertions, and omissions," and thus Joseph Smith’s revised text was born. But the overwhelming majority of the revisions were in the original dictation and are simply part of the original writing on the manuscripts. There are indeed strikeouts and interlinear insertions on the manuscripts, but they came during a second pass through parts of the manuscripts and comprise only a minority of the revisions Joseph Smith made.<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|20-21}}
</blockquote>

== Did Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary significantly influence the JST? ==
In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation". In a summary of their research, Wayment and his research assistant wrote:

<blockquote>
Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term "translation" with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon then published a more detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU professor Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, "A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation," in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

Wayment outlined what he and Haley Wilson believed they had found:

<blockquote>
What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, "I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary." Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, "Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment," ''LDS Perspectives'', September 26, 2019, https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/.</ref>
</blockquote>

=== Accusation of plagiarism ===
In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>
When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like "plagiarism" were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.

To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.

The reality of what happened is inspiring.

Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.

I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "10 Questions with Thomas Wayment," ''From the Desk of Kurt Manwaring'', January 2, 2019, https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/.</ref>
</blockquote>

Mark Ashurst McGee of the Joseph Smith Papers team made similar points as those of Wayment at the 2020 FAIR Conference held in Provo:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=WsQZTb2-GqQ&</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

=== A rebuttal to the Adam Clarke hypothesis ===
In October 2020, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_P._Jackson Kent P. Jackson] (Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and a leading expert on the JST) responded to Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon's work.<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>

Jackson's paper identified several striking weakness to the Adam Clarke hypothesis. These include:

* "I have examined in detail every one of the JST passages they set forth as having been influenced by Clarke, and I have examined what Clarke wrote about those passages. I now believe that the conclusions they reached regarding those connections cannot be sustained. I do not believe that there is [Page 17] Adam Clarke-JST connection at all, and I have seen no evidence that Joseph Smith ever used Clarke’s commentary in his revision of the Bible. None of the passages that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have set forward as examples, in my opinion, can withstand careful scrutiny."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|16-17}}
* "Too often Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon did not read carefully what Clarke wrote, and thus they frequently misinterpret him by ascribing intentions to him that cannot be sustained from his own words."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|28}}
* "There is much evidence in the JST to show that when the Prophet removed or replaced words, he had a tendency to save the deleted words and place them elsewhere, and this [Psalms 33:2] is a good example. All of these revisions are the opposite of what Clarke wanted."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|30}}
* [there are] "several examples in which Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon isolate one small similarity to something Clarke wrote in his commentary, but it is in a Bible passage where nothing in Clarke can account for the other changes Joseph Smith made."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|31}}
* "In his commentary on the surrounding verses in Isaiah 34, Clarke makes several suggestions for revising the text. The fact that none of those suggestions are reflected in Joseph Smith’s translation adds to the unlikelihood that Clarke was the Prophet’s source here at all."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|33}}
* Regarding Mark 8, "Clarke provides what he felt was better wording for four passages in this chapter. Joseph Smith’s translations contains none of them. And Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in the chapter, some of them rather extensive, and none of them resemble anything in Clarke."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|39}}
* "There is even further reason to rule out Clarke as the source for this change [in John 2:24]. [Clarke's] commentary on John 2 has over 3,000 words, and he recommends changing the text in ten places. Joseph Smith made over thirty changes in this short chapter, but this is the only one that resembles anything in Clarke. Why, among Clarke’s thousands of words and scores of thoughtful insights, would Joseph Smith make only this one small revision of minimal consequence if he had Clarke’s commentary in front of him?"<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|40}}
* "Wayment states that Adam Clarke 'shaped Smith’s Bible revision in fundamental ways.' Even if all of the passages he attributes to Clarke were really influenced by Clarke, it seems difficult to justify such a sweeping statement, given the mostly minor rewordings that we have seen. If among the verses listed above are the best examples, as Wilson-Lemmon states,102 then the Adam Clarke-JST theory can be dismissed out of hand."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|53}}

Jackson concluded that "none of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means."<ref name="Jackson_Some_Notes">{{Interpreter:Jackson:Some Notes On Joseph Smith And Adam Clarke:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|15}}

Similarly, Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin L. Barney, who has published on the JST in the past,<ref>See, for instance, Kevin L. Barney, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/a-commentary-on-joseph-smiths-revision-of-first-corinthians/ A Commentary on Joseph Smith’s Revision of First Corinthians]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 53, no. 2 (Summer 2020): 57–105.</ref> wrote that the chances for the Adam Clarke commentary influencing the production of the JST are "de minimis or negligible."<ref>Kevin Barney, "On Secondary Source Influence in the JST," ''By Common Consent'', April 16, 2021, https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/04/16/on-secondary-source-infuence-in-the-jst/</ref>

To be sure, neither Jackson nor Barney are opposed to the idea that there could be secondary source influence on the production of the JST. Thus, this is a faith-neutral issue for both.

At the 2022 FAIR Conference held in Provo, UT, Professor Kent Jackson responded to the theory directly and in depth.<ref>{{Jackson:Was Joseph Smith Influenced By:2022 FAIR Conference}}</ref>

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=yeJDs8xVCcA</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

== Was the JST ever completed? ==
As one LDS scholar noted:
<blockquote>
"The Bible Dictionary in the English LDS Bible states that Joseph Smith 'continued to make modifications [in the translation] until his death in 1844.' Based on information available in the past, that was a reasonable assumption, and I taught it for many years. But we now know that it is not accurate. The best evidence points to the conclusion that when the Prophet called the translation 'finished,' he really meant it, and no changes were made in it after the summer (or possibly the fall) of 1833."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible," in Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 149–160 (link).</ref>
</blockquote>

Joseph did not view his revisions to the Bible as a "once and for all" or "finally completed translation" goal—he simply didn't see scripture that way. The translation could be acceptable for purposes, but still subject to later clarification or elaboration. Joseph was, however, collecting funds to publish the JST—which indicates that he believed it was ready for public use and consumption.

George Q. Cannon reported that Brigham Young heard Joseph speak about further revisions:
<blockquote>
We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fullness at the time of which we write.<ref>George Q. Cannon, ''The Life of Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1888), 142.</ref>
</blockquote>

We again see that the JST or any other scripture is not the ultimate source of LDS doctrine—having a living prophet is what is most vital.

== Why does the Church continue to use the KJV instead of the JST as its official bible? ==

The answer to this question is complex. There is no ''single'' reason; instead, there are many:

#There is no revelation that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would require both prophetic instruction and a sustaining vote of the membership.
#The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches; Brigham Young feared that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn't accurately reflect Joseph Smith's original translation. Given that the Utah Church could not verify the translation, along with the fact that they did not own the copyright, kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. The LDS interest in the JST came much later, largely due to the scholarly work of Robert Matthews on the manuscripts in the early 1970s, and apostle Bruce R. McConkie's embrace of the JST.
#From a practical sense, adoption of the JST could cause a stumbling block for converts. The doctrine of Joseph Smith, modern prophets, and modern books of scripture are already difficult for many Christians to consider. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.
#Portions of the JST ''have'' been canonized: Our [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/contents Book of Moses] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_m/contents Joseph Smith—Matthew] are excerpts from the JST.

In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work—it included multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST. (Ironically, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before critics of the Church began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Lavina Fielding Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible]|date=Oct 1979|start=9}}</ref>)

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, "The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration," Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/the-bible-and-its-role-in-the-restoration?lang=eng}}; "Plain and Precious Things Restored," Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/07/plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng}}; "Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’," Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/a-greater-portrayal-of-the-master?lang=eng}}; Monte S. Nyman, "Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible," Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/restoring-plain-and-precious-parts-the-role-of-latter-day-scriptures-in-helping-us-understand-the-bible?lang=eng}}</ref>

Among Church leaders, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was especially vocal about the JST. In 1980, he said:

<blockquote>
[Joseph] translated the Book of Abraham and what is called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This latter is a marvelously inspired work; it is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. By pure revelation, he inserted many new concepts and views as, for instance, the material in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis about Melchizedek. Some chapters he rewrote and realigned so that the things said in them take on a new perspective and meaning, such as the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the first chapter in the gospel of John.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Bruce R. McConkie|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/06/this-generation-shall-have-my-word-through-you?lang=eng This Generation Shall Have My Word Through You]|date=June 1980|start=54}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1985 Elder McConkie told members during a satellite broadcast:

<blockquote>
As all of us should know, the Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version as it is sometimes called, stands as one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the Prophet. The added truths he placed in the Bible and the corrections he made raise the resultant work to the same high status as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. It is true that he did not complete the work, but it was far enough along that he intended to publish it in its present form in his lifetime.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Bruce R. McConkie|article=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/12/come-hear-the-voice-of-the-lord?lang=eng Come: Hear the Voice of the Lord]|date=December 1985|start=54}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church's official Bible/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

== Why does the JST translation of Genesis (the Pearl of Great Price's Book of Moses) contain New Testament language? ==

The Book of Moses comes from the few chapters of the JST—it is essentially the JST of the first chapters of Genesis.

The translation includes many phrases from the New Testament. The following occurences of New Testament language and concepts reflected in the Book of Moses were documented by David M. Calabro—a Latter-day Saint and Curator of Eastern Christian Manuscripts at the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library at Saint John’s University.<ref name="Calabro_An_early">{{Interpreter:Calabro:An Early Christian Context For The Book Of:2021}}</ref>

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=33%|'''Phrase'''
!width="33%"|'''Location in Book of Moses'''
!width="34%"|'''Location in New Testament'''
|-
|"Only Begotten" and "Only Begotten Son"
||Moses 1:6, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 26, 27; 3:18; 4:1, 3, 28, 5:7, 9, 57; 6:52, 57, 59, 62; 7:50, 59, 62
||John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9
|-
|"transfigured before" God
||Moses 1:11
||Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2
|-
|"get thee hence, Satan"
||Moses 1:16
||Matthew 4:10
|-
|the Holy Ghost "beareth record" of the Father and the Son
||Moses 1:24; 5:9
||1 John 5:7
|-
|"by the word of my power"
||Moses 1:32, 35; 2:5
||Hebrews 1:3
|-
|"full of grace and truth"
||Moses 1:32, 5:7
||John 1:14; cf. John 1:17
|-
|"immortality and eternal life"
||Moses 1:39
||Both terms are absent from the Old Testament but are relatively frequent in the New Testament: ''immortality'' occurs six times, all in Pauline epistles; ''eternal life'' occurs twenty-six times in the Gospels, Pauline epistles, epistles of John, and Jude; "eternal life" also appears elsewhere like in Moses 5:11; 6:59; 7:45.
|-
|"them that believe"
||Moses 1:42; 4:32
||Mark 16:17; John 1:12; Romans 3:22; 4:11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 14:22; Galatians 3:22; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 10:39; the contrasting phrase "them that do not believe" also appears (Rom. 15:31; 1 Cor. 10:27; 14:22)
|-
|"I am the Beginning and the End"
||Moses 2:1
||Revelation 21:6; 22:13
|-
|"Beloved Son" as a title of Christ
||Moses 4:2
||Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17; the phrase "beloved son" appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Luke 20:13; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 1:2) and in the Greek Septuagint of Gen. 22:2, but it is absent from the Hebrew and KJV Old Testament.
|-
|"my Chosen," as a title of Christ
||Moses 4:2; 7:39
||Compare "chosen of God" in reference to Christ in Luke 23:35 and 1 Pet. 2:4
|-
|"thy will be done"
||Moses 4:2
||Matthew 6:10; 26:42; Luke 11:2
|-
|"the glory be thine forever"
||Moses 4:2
||Compare Matthew 6:13 - "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever;" note the proximity of this phrase to "thy will be done" both in Moses 4:2 and in the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:9–1.
|-
|"by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that [Satan] should be cast down"
||Moses 4:3
||Compare Revelation 12:10 - "Now is come . . . the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down"; note that the Hebrew title ''Satan'' means "accuser"
|-
|"the devil"
||Moses 4:4
||Sixty-one instances in the New Testament, translating the Greek word ''diabolos''
|-
|"carnal, sensual, and devilish"
||Moses 5:13; 6:49
||James 3:15 "earthly, sensual, and devilish"
|-
|"Satan desireth to have thee"
||Moses 5:23
||Luke 22:31 "Satan hath desired to have you"
|-
|"Perdition," as the title of a person
||Moses 5:24
||Compare "the son of perdition" in John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; the word ''perdition'' as an abstract noun meaning "destruction" (translating the Greek word ''apoleia'') occurs elsewhere in the King James version of the New Testament (Philippians 1:28; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 17:8, 11)
|-
|"the Gospel"
||Moses 5:58, 59, 8:19
||Eighty-three instances in the New Testament; the word ''gospel'', irrespective of the English definite article, occurs 101 times in the New Testament but is not found in the Old Testament.
|-
|"holy angels"
||Moses 5:58
||Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Acts 10:22 (singular "holy angel"); Revelation 14:10
|-
|"gift of the Holy Ghost"
||Moses 5:58; 6:52
||Acts 2:38; 10:45
|-
|"anointing" the eyes in order to see
||Moses 6:35 – "anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see"
||Compare John 9:6–7, 11 (Jesus anoints the eyes of a blind man with clay and commands him to wash in the pool of Siloam, and he "came seeing"); Revelation 3:18 (the Lord tells the church in Laodicea, "anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see"); these are the only passages in the Bible that refer to anointing the eyes
|-
|"no man laid hands on him"
||Moses 6:39
||John 7:30, 44; 8:20
|-
|"my God, and your God"
||Moses 6:43
||John 20:17
|-
|"only name under heaven whereby salvation shall come"
||Moses 6:52
||Acts 4:12
|-
|collocation of water, blood, and Spirit
||Moses 6:59-60
||1 John 5:6, 8
|-
|"born again of water and the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit"; "born again"; "born of water and of the Spirit"; "born of the Spirit"
||Moses 6:59, 65
||John 3:3, 5-8
|-
|"the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"
||Moses 6:59
||Matthew 13:11. The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is absent from the Old Testament; in the New Testament it is found only in Matthew (thirty-two occurrences), but it is frequent in rabbinic literature
|-
|"cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten"
||Moses 6:59
||Compare 1 John 1:7 ("the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin")
|-
|"the words of eternal life"
||Moses 6:59
||John 6:68
|-
|eternal life "in the world to come"
||Moses 6:59
||Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; the phrase "the world to come" is absent from the Old Testament but occurs five times in the New Testament; other than the two just quoted, see Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 2:5; 6:5
|-
|"by the Spirit ye are justified"
||Moses 6:60
||Compare 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Timothy 3:16
|-
|"the Comforter," referring to the Holy Ghost
||Moses 6:61
||John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7
|-
|"the inner man"
||Moses 6:65
||Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16
|-
|"baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost"
||Moses 6:66
||Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16
|-
|"they were of one heart and one mind"
||Moses 7:18
||Compare Acts 4:32
|-
|"in the bosom of the Father," referring to heaven
||Moses 7:24, 47
||John 1:18 (note that JST deletes this phrase in this verse, perhaps implying that it entered the text sometime after its original composition)
|-
|"a great chain in his hand"
||Moses 7:26
||Revelation 20:1 (here the one holding the chain is an angel, unlike Moses 7:26, in which it is the devil)
|-
|commandment to "love one another"
||Moses 7:33
||John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17; Romans 12:10; 13:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12; 2 John 1:5
|-
|"without affection"
||Moses 7:33
||Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3
|-
|"the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world"
||Moses 7:47
||Compare Revelation 13:8 – "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," as a noun phrase); the term "the Lamb" is used as a title of the Messiah only in the New Testament and is distinctively Johannine (John 1:29, 36; twenty-seven instances in Revelation), and the words lamb and slain collocate only in Revelation 5:6, 12; 13:8.
|-
|"climb up" by a gate or door, as a metaphor of progression through Christ
||Moses 7:53
||John 10:1
|}

Video by The Interpreter Foundation.
<embedvideo service="youtube">o5c4XpcEL4U</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

This language can be explained by a few possible factors, not all mutually exclusive.

=== "After the Manner of Their Language" – Doctrine & Covenants 1:24 ===
The first possibility to consider is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Moses into a vernacular that was comprehensible to his 19th century audience. Joseph's contemporaries were steeped in biblical language and used it even in everyday speech. The language of the New Testament was the natural way to discuss certain theological ideas.

{{s||D&C|1|24}} tells us that in revelation, God uses the language of his audience to communicate effectively" Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."<ref>See also {{s|2|Nephi|31|3}}.</ref>

=== An early Christian context for the creation of the Book of Moses ===

Another possibility is that the Book of Moses was originally written in an early Christian context. That would place the composition of the Book of Moses in the 1st and 2nd century AD (about 1900 to 1800 years ago). Calabro outlined and defended this theory.<ref name="Calabro_An_early">{{Interpreter:Calabro:An Early Christian Context For The Book Of:2021}}</ref> Calabro argues that the Book of Moses can still preserve actual events from the life of Moses while placing the story in a Christian context describing it with Christian language. Thus, Joseph Smith could actually be restoring lost understanding of Moses—but that information has already been filtered through New Testament language.

One potential weakness of this theory is that it disrupts the understanding of many Church members about the Book of Moses, since it has more traditionally been seen as a restoration of Moses' writings in Genesis. However, Joseph Smith does not seem to have left a detailed account of what the Book of Moses represents. Joseph saw the JST as a restoration of "many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."<ref>Joseph Smith, ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'', ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), 10–11.</ref>

This theory could also, in essence, be turned on its head, making an ancient version of the Book of Moses ''the source'' of subsequent Christian writing. Latter-day Saint author Jeff Lindsay and former BYU professor Noel Reynolds have theorized that the Book of Moses influenced the language of the Book of Mormon via the brass plates or another source.<ref>{{Interpreter:Reynolds:Strong Like Unto Moses The Case For Ancient:2021}} {{Interpreter:Reynolds:The Brass Plates Version Of Genesis:2019}}</ref>

=== Similar messages to different nations ===
Speaking in reference to the Bible, the Book of Mormon has God announce that "I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/29.8?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8 2 Nephi 29:8]</ref>

It is certainly possible that the same concepts were revealed to Moses with similar language as that used in the New Testament.

=== Conclusion—New Testament and the Book of Moses ===
There are therefore multiple models which would explain the similarity between the Book of Moses and the New Testament. Given that the Book of Moses claims to be a ''translation'', it is hardly strange that it would echo another translation (the KJV bible) that discusses the same ideas and issues.

==Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"==
===Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love===

The scriptures affirm that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. A great debate in Christian history has been the ''nature'' of this oneness.

Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see {{s||John|17|22-23}}). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son.

This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

== When Joseph performed his inspired translation of the Bible, why didn't he rewrite the creation account in Genesis to read more like that in the Book of Abraham? ==
=== The Bible does support plurality of gods ===

When God gives new insight and revelation, he doesn't typically "rewrite" all scripture that has gone before: He simply adds to it.

The creation account in the Book of Abraham supports a plurality of gods. Critics claim that the Bible does not support this. However, there are two errors in the assumption that the Bible does not support a plurality of gods.

=== There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis ===

Error #1: It is debatable that the unedited King James Version of Genesis truly only includes "one God." There are clearly multiple divine personages in Genesis:
<blockquote>

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become ''as one of us'', to know good and evil.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}})
</blockquote>

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

=== The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis, the Book of Moses, actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages ===

Error #2: The Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis actually ''did'' clarify the role and existence of multiple divine personages. The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (which is the simply the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis) has many examples of multiple divine personages:

<blockquote>
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 ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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? ({{s||Moses|1|13}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|16-17}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; ({{s||Moses|1|24}})
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
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. ({{s||Moses|1|33}})
</blockquote>

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" ({{s||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.

==Is the Church "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence===

Some critics have claimed that the Church is "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=385}}</ref>

This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence. The claim was made in 1977. In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work. Thus, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before the Tanners began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Lavina Fielding Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible]|date=Oct 1979|start=9}} </ref> It had multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST.

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use. Some examples of this effort published around the time the Tanners were making their claim include:

* Robert J. Matthews, “The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/the-bible-and-its-role-in-the-restoration?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Plain and Precious Things Restored,” Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/07/plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/a-greater-portrayal-of-the-master?lang=eng}}
* Monte S. Nyman, “Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible,” Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/restoring-plain-and-precious-parts-the-role-of-latter-day-scriptures-in-helping-us-understand-the-bible?lang=eng}}

The Church is not, and was not, embarrassed by the JST. In its historical context, the critics' claim is incredibly ill-informed.

{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church's official Bible/JST an embarrassment to leaders/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

==Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other===

Parallel passages from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sometimes disagree not only with the King James Version of the Bible, but also with each other. Critics ask why Joseph's earlier work (i.e., the Book of Mormon) generally followed the King James Version of the Bible closely while his later work (i.e., the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible) did not. Critics ask which translation did Joseph get right, implying that one is wrong, hence bringing his prophetic calling into question. Critics generally cite any of a number of passages from Matthew 5-7 from the King James Version and Joseph Smith Translation and 3 Nephi 12-14 from the Book of Mormon. A much celebrated example is:

{{scripture||Matthew|6|25-27}} (King James Version)
: 25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
: 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
: 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

{{s|3|Nephi|13|25-27}}) (Book of Mormon)
: 25 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
: 26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
: 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Matthew 6:25-27 (Joseph Smith Translation)
: 25 And, again, I say unto you, go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.
: 26 Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.
: 27 And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.

===Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations===

Joseph had different purposes in mind in his different translations. This is not unique or unusual in scripture—even the Bible. Hence, neither the Book of Mormon nor the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible can be discounted because of seeming discrepancies with each other or with the King James Version of the Bible.

Joseph Smith had different purposes in mind when bringing forth the Book of Mormon and the Joseph smith Translation. His purpose in bringing forth the Book of Mormon was to witness "the reality that "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations". Departing from the King James Version, i.e., the translation familiar to those who would become the Book of Mormon's first readers, would have been a stumbling block in achieving its purpose. On the other hand, Joseph's later purpose in bringing forth the Joseph Smith Translation is largely understood to have been one of redaction, or inspired commentary—to resolve confusion regarding biblical interpretation<ref>{{Dialogue|author=Kevin Barney|article=[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N03_87.pdf The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible]|vol=19|num=3|date=Fall 1986|pages=85-102}}</ref> Hence the different wording, and in some cases, even content.

===Biblical Parallel===

Gleason Archer, well known Evangelical Christian and the Author of a highly respected book called "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", addresses the issue of Paul citing deficient Greek Septuagint translations that appear in our New Testaments today in lieu of better translations of the Old Testament he could have come up with. Archer says:

<blockquote>
Suppose Paul had chosen to work out a new, more accurate translation into Greek directly from Hebrew. Might not the Bereans have said in reply, "that’s not the way we find it in our Bible. How do we know you have not slanted your different rendering here and there in order to favor you new teaching about Christ?" In order to avoid suspicion and misunderstanding, it was imperative for the apostles and evangelists to stick with the Septuagint in their preaching and teaching, both oral and written.

We, like the first-century apostles, resort to these standard translations to teach our people in terms they can verify by resorting to their own Bibles, yet admittedly, none of these translations is completely free of faults. We use them nevertheless, for the purpose of more effective communication than if we were to translate directly from the Hebrew or Greek.<ref>Gleason L. Archer, ''An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'' (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1982), 31. ISBN 0310435706.</ref>
</blockquote>

Archer's point is that it is more important in certain settings that Paul's writings be ''familiar'' rather than ''100% precise''.

{{:JST_Genesis_50_33}}

{{To learn more box:Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Discrepancies Between Translations: Book of Mormon, King James Version, Joseph Smith Translation/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Viele oder einen einzigen Schöpfer der Erde?]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/Relationship to the Book of Mormon]]
[[es:Pregunta: Cuando José Smith realizó su traducción inspirada de la Biblia, ¿por qué no reescribió el relato de la creación en Génesis para leer más en el Libro de Abraham?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo explicamos la posibilidad de múltiples autores del Libro de Isaías y el Libro de Mormón?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Los traductores académicos copiar las traducciones de otros documentos para utilizar como un "texto base"?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué el Libro de Mormón coincide con la versión King James (KJV) de la Biblia tan de cerca?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué muchas de las citas de Isaías en el Libro de Mormón idénticas a las de la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como é que vamos explicar múltipla "Isaías" e do Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Não tradutores acadêmicos copiar traduções de outros documentos para usar como "texto base"?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que muitas das citações de Isaías no Livro de Mórmon são idênticas às da Bíblia do Rei James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que o Livro de Mórmon coincide tão rigorosamente com a Versão do Rei James?]]

[[Category:Questions]]
[[en:Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?]]
[[es:La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_la_Biblia_oficial_de_la_iglesia]]

Is the Church embarrassed by the JST

2025-10-13T01:15:53Z

ReedComire: Created page with "{{Header}} ===This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence=== Some critics have claimed that the Church is "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=385}}</ref> This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence. The claim was made in 1977. In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work. Thus, the JST was the focus of serious..."

{{Header}}

===This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence===

Some critics have claimed that the Church is "embarrassed" by the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=385}}</ref>

This claim is contradicted by an enormous amount of historical evidence. The claim was made in 1977. In 1978, the Church produced its new version of the KJV after years of work. Thus, the JST was the focus of serious attention by the Church long before the Tanners began to insist that leaders were ashamed of it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Lavina Fielding Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible]|date=Oct 1979|start=9}} </ref> It had multiple footnote and appendix entries from the JST.

The Church magazines also launched a concerted effort to introduce Latter-day Saints to the JST material that was now easily available, and to encourage its use. Some examples of this effort published around the time the Tanners were making their claim include:

* Robert J. Matthews, “The Bible and Its Role in the Restoration,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 41 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/the-bible-and-its-role-in-the-restoration?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Plain and Precious Things Restored,” Ensign, Jul 1982, 15 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/07/plain-and-precious-things-restored?lang=eng}}
* Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s Efforts to Publish His Bible ‘Translation’,” Ensign, Jan 1983, 57–58. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/03/a-greater-portrayal-of-the-master?lang=eng}}
* Monte S. Nyman, “Restoring ‘Plain and Precious Parts’: The Role of Latter-day Scriptures in Helping Us Understand the Bible,” Ensign, Dec 1981, 19–25 {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/12/restoring-plain-and-precious-parts-the-role-of-latter-day-scriptures-in-helping-us-understand-the-bible?lang=eng}}

The Church is not, and was not, embarrassed by the JST. In its historical context, the critics' claim is incredibly ill-informed.

{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church's official Bible/JST an embarrassment to leaders/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}