Tough question 1

[whoknowswhat]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

[KristofferUmfrey]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

I have issues with the JST and that is one of them.

[applepansy]

Isn't it possible that in all the years of copying the Bible by hand under candlelight that things were excluded (accidently) that needed to be restored?

I believe the Joseph Smith Translation added the words we had lost. I'm grateful for further knowledge through the Prophet Joseph.

applepansy

[whoknowswhat]

You didn't even read what I said.

If things were lost from the original biblical account and Joseph Smith restored them, then that means that Jesus taught something different in the Americas than he taught in Jerusalem, and it just happens to be the exact way that the erroneous copies would end up coming to us.

Or, when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he just copied the passages from the Bible, rather than actually reading what was on the plates.

Either way, there's no good reason why the JST and the BoM differ. They should be the same.

[Wingnut]

If things were lost from the original biblical account and Joseph Smith restored them, then that means that Jesus taught something different in the Americas than he taught in Jerusalem...

Either way, there's no good reason why the JST and the BoM differ. They should be the same.

Why is this so hard to believe? That He might tailor His message to the people to whom He was speaking? I don't see a problem.

[jiminycricket]

Whoknows, let's approach this with faith. Instead of saying, "...there's no good reason..." let's say, "I know there is a good reason, but I haven't been able to find it out." Can you tell us where exactly where you see this? It's usually best to work with specifics, rather than from a summary.

JiminyC

[Palerider]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

After reading your first thread....I am kinda surprised you have time to ponder something like this....with your marriage being the way it is I thought from your thread thats all your mind was occupied with......

for the sake of not getting contention started here....check out this web site...Answers About Mormons and Mormon Belief (LDS FAQ - Latter-day Saints)

[MsMagnolia]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

OR

Joeph smith was inspired of God to fix some of the mistranslations that happened in Matthew. The account from the Book of Mormon was translated only once not dozens of times into several diferent languages.

I am so thankful to have a testimony of Joseph Smith and his calling as a Prophet of God. That makes reconciliations much easier :)

Just my two cents,

Mags

[Guest tomk]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

What you present here is a "sucker's choice." Meaning, you say that the answer can ONLY be these 3 things.

The answer is: The Bible lost many truths. Joseph Smith restored these truths in the JST.

The Book of Mormon contains a similar discourse to the Sermon on the Mount. I don't know that there is any place that says the sermons must match. Jesus could teach some things differently according to the readiness and faith of the audience. I don't know of any "rule" that says the sermons must match.

[Elgama]

I don't see why its so impossible Jesus' account to the Nephites and the Israelites was different, for a start the Nephites had greater knowledge and were in a position were the crowd was all faithful - also it was given after the atonement the other before.

I would not expect President Hinckley or Monson to have given exactly the same sermon in England to the one they give in Scotland - both were savvy enough to know the Scots need it tweaking etc

However the general message would be the same etc

-Charley

[Justice]

They are different, and this is why.

He taught those in Jerusalem while He was alive on the earth and before the Atonement.

He taught those in America after He was resurrected and after the Atonement.

If you read the two accounts and look to those specific differences, you will see why they are different.

I'm concerned these differences cause you to doubt Joseph Smith, and that it did not lead you to question your own understanding.

Also, keep in mind that one was given "on the mount" and the other given "at the temple." This might help you discover the differences and why, and how those differences can work together to teach us more about the Atonement and how it relates to our temple attendance.

[pam]

Awesome Justice. I always LOVE your posts.

[Guest tomk]

Justice:

I had not thought about that before!

Tom

[Sergg]

The other day I was reading in 3rd Nephi, where Jesus is teaching his sermon on the mount to the Nephites. The chapter heading said to compare it to Matthew, so I did. Except when I did that, I found JST footnotes that add to /change the Matthew account.

So either

Jesus delivered two different accounts, and one just HAPPENED to be the same as what would eventually get passed down to our generation through mistranslations

or

Joseph Smith got lazy that day and just copied the verses out of the bible instead of actually translating them

or

The JST is bogus, as it doesn't line up with what Christ actually taught.

I can't see an easy reconciliation.

The case of Smith's translations is curious. I took my time at pondering some issues. For example, although it can be shown(and has) that many 'translations' of Smith (that actually render the verse exactly the same...) , after unearthing some earlier sources have been found to be just as faulty as the regular versions of his time.

That case is also that of his 'new testament' 'translations'. But in the case of, say, the Abraham document (Pearl of Great Price), it is astonishing how(if the preserved document contains absolutely nothing of the text as such) at least some words (specially the names of stars) do correspond to some of the images(hieroglyphs). This, before the actual discovery of the meaning of egyptian sources had been cracked.

But again, yes, the case of 'Mathew TJS' and 3rd Nephi is just a laughstock -in the sense of it being so obvious to those related to 1800's renderings of the bible...

[Moksha]

Either way, there's no good reason why the JST and the BoM differ. They should be the same.

I am bad at apologetics, so I won't even try to make up an answer. People could make reasoned guesses or we could just say it is a mystery.

[KristofferUmfrey]

My major problem with the JST is the story of Enoch...

The Lord tells the BOJ (Brother of Jared) that never before had he shown himself "unto man, whom I have created", while the Enoch account in the JST says that Enoch saw the Lord many years before the BOJ.

The Book of Mormon, though having the Brass Plates, says nothing of Enoch or his experience.

I've come to believe the story of Enoch was one of the "Mormon Myths" of the Ancient Church. kind of like the story of the 3 Nephites standing behind a set of missionaries who knocked on Jeffery Dahmer's door to keep him from doing them harm.

[Justice]

The Lord showed Himself to many. I have always taken the account with the brother of Jared to mean "in the flesh." The brother of Jared saw the Lord as He would appear in the flesh and saw that He would take upon Himself a body. To my knowledge, none of the other prophets described seeing the Lord in this manner. They saw the body of His spirit.

The other difference that's notable is that the Lord did not "show Himself" to the brother of Jared until after he saw the Lord's finger. The brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord before the Lord showed Himself to Him. To my knowledge, this did not happen in any other account I've read.

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. I think too often we look for evidence and proof where it doesn't exist, namely through history and physical evidence. The Book of Mormon tells us how to know. Using other methods simply aren't going to work. Questioning things we do not understand in a believing manner helps us to keep what we do know, or what we should know, near and dear to us. Things we do not understand should never cause us to question what has already been revealed to us. If you allow things you do not know or understand to make you question whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, perhaps it's time to take Moroni's challenge again?

There is no other way to know that the Book of Mormon is true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

There will always be something else we don't understand.

[Sergg]

My major problem with the JST is the story of Enoch...

The Lord tells the BOJ (Brother of Jared) that never before had he shown himself "unto man, whom I have created", while the Enoch account in the JST says that Enoch saw the Lord many years before the BOJ.

The Book of Mormon, though having the Brass Plates, says nothing of Enoch or his experience.

I've come to believe the story of Enoch was one of the "Mormon Myths" of the Ancient Church. kind of like the story of the 3 Nephites standing behind a set of missionaries who knocked on Jeffery Dahmer's door to keep him from doing them harm.

Interesting.

[KristofferUmfrey]

The Lord showed Himself to many. I have always taken the account with the brother of Jared to mean "in the flesh." The brother of Jared saw the Lord as He would appear in the flesh and saw that He would take upon Himself a body. To my knowledge, none of the other prophets described seeing the Lord in this manner. They saw the body of His spirit.

The other difference that's notable is that the Lord did not "show Himself" to the brother of Jared until after he saw the Lord's finger. The brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord before the Lord showed Himself to Him. To my knowledge, this did not happen in any other account I've read.

Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. I think too often we look for evidence and proof where it doesn't exist, namely through history and physical evidence. The Book of Mormon tells us how to know. Using other methods simply aren't going to work. Questioning things we do not understand in a believing manner helps us to keep what we do know, or what we should know, near and dear to us. Things we do not understand should never cause us to question what has already been revealed to us. If you allow things you do not know or understand to make you question whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, perhaps it's time to take Moroni's challenge again?

There is no other way to know that the Book of Mormon is true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

There will always be something else we don't understand.

All I know is the Book of Mormon and Bible are to grow together to confound false doctrine. I feel safe that if it is not in there I don't need to accept it.

I won't get into specifics about your post. I've made a decision to try and not be contentious and just offer my points of view. Sometimes the best way to do that is to let people opinions stand without comment.

[skalenfehl]

Tom and Justice hit the nail on the head. The answers aren't always as obvious as we may think. This is definitely a good topic.

[Justice]

The Book of Mormon, though having the Brass Plates, says nothing of Enoch or his experience.

The Book of Mormon was not taken from the Brass Plates. If you understood that the Book of Mormon was translated from the Plates of Mormon, which is an abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi with an insertion of the Small Plates of Nephi, you would understand why it does not contain anything about Enoch.

It was not the intention of the people who wrote the history of the Nephite people to give a history of their forefathers. Nor was it the intention of Mormon, when he abridged the Large Plates of Nephi, for it to contain anything from the Brass Plates. They knew we would already have those things, even if precious parts were removed. Some of the words of the Brass Plates were quoted in the Book of Mormon, but mostly the words of Isaiah that Nephi quotes on the Small Plates of Nephi.

It never dawned on me to question the veracity of the Book of Mormon because they did not include Enoch. I have always thought that the Lord restored the story of Enoch through the prophet Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price BECAUSE it had been removed from our Bible. We were supposed to have the story of Enoch in the Bible, not the Book of Mormon.

[whoknowswhat]

First off, let me say that I appreciated those of you who actually read my post before responding. It does no good to answer the question that's not being asked.

I have no problem with the sermons being different from one another. What I'm trying to understand is this:

If the mistranslated version of the sermon on the mount in the Bible needs to be corrected by the JST, why would Christ teach the incorrect version of that sermon to the Nephites?

Constructive posts only please, I'm not interested in being told I'm being faithless (or that I don't have time to wonder about things like this "with my marriage being the way it is" (honestly, how rude and judgmental can you get?)). I'm wondering if everyone has done what I've done my whole life, and said "that makes no sense. Oh well." or if anyone has figured out how this might be explained.

Edited January 18, 2009 by whoknowswhat

[KristofferUmfrey]

The Book of Mormon was not taken from the Brass Plates. If you understood that the Book of Mormon was translated from the Plates of Mormon, which is an abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi with an insertion of the Small Plates of Nephi, you would understand why it does not contain anything about Enoch.

It was not the intention of the people who wrote the history of the Nephite people to give a history of their forefathers. Nor was it the intention of Mormon, when he abridged the Large Plates of Nephi, for it to contain anything from the Brass Plates. They knew we would already have those things, even if precious parts were removed. Some of the words of the Brass Plates were quoted in the Book of Mormon, but mostly the words of Isaiah that Nephi quotes on the Small Plates of Nephi.

It never dawned on me to question the veracity of the Book of Mormon because they did not include Enoch. I have always thought that the Lord restored the story of Enoch through the prophet Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price BECAUSE it had been removed from our Bible. We were supposed to have the story of Enoch in the Bible, not the Book of Mormon.

Excuse my ignorance...

Having read the Book of Mormon cover to cover close to 10 times I was always under the impression they had the Brass Plates to draw from for stories of faith and inspiration, such and Zenock and Zenos and the words of Isaiah for example.

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood all these years.

BTW, I am questioning some of the changes in the JST, not the Book of Mormon. I know the Book of Mormon is true.

[whoknowswhat]

I am questioning some of the changes in the JST, not the Book of Mormon. I know the Book of Mormon is true.

So Joseph's prophetic inspiration works for some of the inspired documents of the Church and not for others? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[jiminycricket]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of whoknows's question. If I may paraphrase, his question is not simply, "Why are these passages different?", but, "If the original translation was incorrect, why does the Savior's sermon to the Nephites, as it is recorded in the BoM, exactly match it?"

It's actually a very good question.

If I gave a sacrament meeting talk and you recorded it and someone else translated it into another language incorrectly, then I gave the same talk a week later with some variances and it was recorded and correctly translated, would you expect the record of the incorrectly translated passages of the first talk to exactly match the corresponding passages in the correctly translated record of the second?

It's kinda hard to follow, but the answer is no, a sensible person would not expect that. It would be quite a remarkable feat for the translators (who incorrectly translated many parts of the New Testament) to pull out of thin air exactly what the Savior said to the Nephites rather than correctly translating what He said to the Jews, which was right in front of them and was their stated purpose.

There are grounds on which I think I could give some explanation, if that is indeed what we have here. But that will perhaps be of use once we are given the exact scriptural reference for all of this and it becomes clear that there is no other fundamental mistake or misunderstanding.

Again, whoknows, exact references please. Where do you see this?

JC

Edited January 18, 2009 by jiminycricket
Added reminder to whoknowswhat