New Testament Thoughts and LDS Apologetics

[lonetree]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the NT, its preservation, & modern translations, Since, well, Victorian times, bible scholars have deemed passages like John 7.53-8.11-and others- as not part of the bible text. They're not in the best, earliest, manuscripts(early being by no means the only qualifier of best in this sense).That to me means that they are not inspired. Oh sure, some will state that the story of -'go and sin no more' is in the spirit of the rest of the nt but that hardly means they're part of the canon-and thus God's word. So, something as vivid and powerful as that was a part of scripture from Augustine, through Luther, Calvin, Bunyan, Wesley, and for millions of unnamed Christian readers & hearers of the Bible up until the 1880s. Then it's not...Huh. 

     This causes me some consternation-to understate it-, but my question is more directed to those LDS among you. Do you see this as an opening in speaking to others about the restored gospel? Is the Book Of Mormon's existence an opportunity to move beyond such a problem(& I do see it as a problem). 

Edited May 10, 2016 by lonetree

[Guest]

11 hours ago, lonetree said:

Do you see this as an opening in speaking to others about the restored gospel? Is the Book Of Mormon's existence an opportunity to move beyond such a problem.

I'm hoping I understand you correctly.  

1) You see that there is a translation problem (improperly transmitting God's word over time).
2) You see this as an opportunity for Mormons to use that information as an opening to speak to others about the restored gospel?

Well, we agree with the overall issue that there has been a translation problem, obviously.  But there are three things to consider as to your second point.

1. This isn't really news to us.  And it isn't really news to students in Biblical transcription history.  People have already made up their minds on the subject and made arguments to counter such issues.  It will always be thus.
2. When we see such issues that protestants will agree are questionable, then there is always the question of which passages are trustworthy or not and to what extent.  This relies heavily on interpretation which in turn relies heavily on preconceived notions.  And there is precious little that we can do to logically settle the issue.
3. If you're referring to missionary work rather than discussions on a forum such as this, no.  That won't work.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Guest

[Edspringer]

In the Articles of Faith, it’s stated:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormonto be the word of God”.

“ We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f?lang=eng.

 

That being said, we acknowledge the Bible as inspired as long as its translation is correct. Of course, we know that a lot has been missed in the translation process, both in meaning and in content. The Book of Mormon is no substitute for the Bible, but as prophesized through Ezekiel, it is one with the Bible in God’s hands (Ezekiel 37:16-17).

We are comissioned to take the Book of Mormon to all the world as an additional witness of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this task, we reaffirm the importance of the Bible and teach that God has again revealed His will in these latter-days through living prophets and apostles and that the Book of Mormon is a record of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent and their knowledge of the gospel.

We use the Book of Mormon as another invitation to come to Christ. In no way it is used to merely convince people about the LDS Church or to discredit the Bible as holy scripture.

If you have a copy of the Book of Mormon, I suggest the following reading:

2 Niphi, chapters  26 to 30.

 

[Edspringer]

In the Articles of Faith, it’s stated:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormonto be the word of God”.

“ We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”

 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f?lang=eng.

 

 

That being said, we acknowledge the Bible as inspired as long as its translation is correct. Of course, we know that a lot has been missed in the translation process, both in meaning and in content. The Book of Mormon is no substitute for the Bible, but as prophesized through Ezekiel, it is one with the Bible in God’s hands (Ezekiel 37:16-17).

We are comissioned to take the Book of Mormon to all the world as an additional witness of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this task, we reaffirm the importance of the Bible and teach that God has again revealed His will in these latter-days through living prophets and apostles and that the Book of Mormon is a record of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent and their knowledge of the gospel.

We use the Book of Mormon as another invitation to come to Christ. In no way it is used to merely convince people about the LDS Church or to discredit the Bible as holy scripture.

If you have a copy of the Book of Mormon, I suggest the following reading:

 

2 Nephi, chapters  26 to 30.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Edspringer

[CV75]

8 hours ago, lonetree said:

I've been thinking a lot lately about the NT, its preservation, & modern translations, Since, well, Victorian times, bible scholars have deemed passages like John 7.53-8.11-and others- as not part of the bible text. They're not in the best, earliest, manuscripts(early being by no means the only qualifier of best in this sense).That to me means that they are not inspired. Oh sure, some will state that the story of -'go and sin no more' is in the spirit of the rest of the nt but that hardly means they're part of the canon-and thus God's word. So, something as vivid and powerful as that was a part of scripture from Augustine, through Luther, Calvin, Bunyan, Wesley, and for millions of unnamed Christian readers & hearers of the Bible up until the 1880s. Then it's not...Huh. 

     This causes me some consternation-to understate it-, but my question is more directed to those LDS among you. Do you see this as an opening in speaking to others about the restored gospel? Is the Book Of Mormon's existence an opportunity to move beyond such a problem(& I do see it as a problem). 

It can be an opening if someone brings it up, but I wouldn't lead with it for a number of practical reasons. I think that is why we begin with explaining what "Restoration" means in general, beginning with the First Vision. I think that is also why we rely more on testimony and inviting the Spirit to bear witness that our message is Christ's message.

The Book of Mormon is probably the best vehicle for someone to receive a spiritual witness of the Restoration, once he reads it. Its existence, from the Title Page, is “…to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

I think that last sentence applies to the Bible and any other scripture as well as the Book of Mormon, so we need to have some patience and charity about what we read and how we treat it, since they are nonetheless counted among "the things of God." Despite its faults, the Bible is still of God, and He will lead us along if we have the right attitude about it and receive of His light and the Spirit as we move forward with faith. The Book of Mormon will additionally open our eyes to the truth and truths of the Restoration.

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You see that there is a translation problem (improperly transmitting God's word over time).

1 hour ago, Edspringer said:

we acknowledge the Bible as inspired as long as its translation is correct. Of course, we know that a lot has been missed in the translation process, both in meaning and in content.

We've discussed this many times, since the quoted Article of Faith is poorly understood, even, or especially, by us Saints.

The word "translate" does not mean today what it meant in 1842 when Joseph wrote the Articles of Faith. To his contemporaries, it primarily meant "to move through space (and time)" and only trivially "to move from one language to another". We still have this connotation when astronauts speak of translating a space craft from one orbit to another.

What Joseph meant was that the people who brought the Bible from Moses and Isaiah, from Matthew and John to us did three negative and significant things:
1) They left a lot out.
2) They changed the words that are there.
3) They added words that weren't written in the original texts. (In one case, they put a whole book in that is not inspired scripture.)

The first is the most important, although the others are still critical in "local" parts of the documents.

Much of the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. The source document for these passages was "the Brass Plates of Laban" (and, to a lesser extent, the words of the Risen Christ Who brought later revelations to His Jewish prophets to the Nephites). The prophet Nephi described Bible as being like those plates but with less material. Joseph also undertook a fourteen-year project (which he did not finish) to restore the text of the AV to reflect what the original writers wrote or meant.

To answer your question, though, we do not spend a great deal of time discussing it with people outside our faith as an "opener". Our message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that He has called living prophets in our day who hold the keys to the covenants He has commanded for us. We talk of Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism for the remission of sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I'm 68 years old, and in spite of a lifetime of study, I cannot say I fully understand any of these. I can speak about any of them for hours at a time, but "fully understand" is a tall order, one I have not scaled.

Lehi

Edited May 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, lonetree said:

I've been thinking a lot lately about the NT, its preservation, & modern translations, Since, well, Victorian times, bible scholars have deemed passages like John 7.53-8.11-and others- as not part of the bible text. They're not in the best, earliest, manuscripts(early being by no means the only qualifier of best in this sense).That to me means that they are not inspired. Oh sure, some will state that the story of -'go and sin no more' is in the spirit of the rest of the nt but that hardly means they're part of the canon-and thus God's word. So, something as vivid and powerful as that was a part of scripture from Augustine, through Luther, Calvin, Bunyan, Wesley, and for millions of unnamed Christian readers & hearers of the Bible up until the 1880s. Then it's not...Huh. 

     This causes me some consternation-to understate it-, but my question is more directed to those LDS among you. Do you see this as an opening in speaking to others about the restored gospel? Is the Book Of Mormon's existence an opportunity to move beyond such a problem(& I do see it as a problem). 

 

There is a dimension about scriptures, leaders within the divine kingdom of G-d and the covenants saints that appear to me to be missing from this discussion.   What is missing is that they are all flawed.  That anyone following with exclusivity (worshipping) these “things” will be misled and ill informed.   It is my flawed opinion that such flaws are by divine design.  If G-d wanted his ideas and teachings to be distributed without any possible flaw – He would not involve mankind in the process.

When we give our opinions – we like to think we have worked out all the flaws and we want all the “smart” people to agree with us.  If they don’t agree and if we can find a flaw in them we can blame them for a great many things – including some of our own flaws.  G-d does not send missionaries out into the world at young ages (18 to about 26) because they do not have any flaws – he sends them because they do.  – Now do not take this wrong – that the greater the flaw the better the messenger – or that the lessor the flaw the better the messenger.  The point is that it is not about the messenger (means) it is about the message.

Some never hear the message because they are too caught up in the messenger.  Either because they think the messenger has no flaws or because they think the messenger has flaws.

 

The Traveler

[Edspringer]

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

We've discussed this many times, since the quoted Article of Faith is poorly understood, even, or especially, by us Saints.

The word "translate" does not mean today what it meant in 1842 when Joseph wrote the Articles of Faith. To his contemporaries, it primarily meant "to move through space (and time)" and only trivially "to move from one language to another". We still have this connotation when astronauts speak of translating a space craft from one orbit to another.

What Joseph meant was that the people who brought the Bible from Moses and Isaiah, from Matthew and John to us did three negative and significant things:
1) They left a lot out.
2) They changed the words that are there.
3) They added words that weren't written in the original texts. (In one case, they put a whole book in that is not inspired scripture.)

The first is the most important, although the others are still critical in "local" parts of the documents.

 

Thanx, LeSellers. I really enjoyed your comment.

Let's also consider what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism has to say on the subject:

“IS THE BIBLE COMPLETE? Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God revealed to humankind. However, Joseph Smith recognized that translations do not reflect totally and exactly the original words and intentions of the ancient prophets and other biblical writers. Thus, in the Wentworth Letter he wrote, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" (A of F 8). Joseph Smith observed that "our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation" (TPJS, pp. 290-91). While Latter-day Saints accept rather explicitly what the Bible now says, they realize that more is to be accounted for than is available in the extant biblical record.

In addition to difficulties associated with translating from ancient to modern languages, other scriptures also declare that some parts of the original biblical text have been lost or corrupted (e.g., 1 Ne. 13:28-29; D&C 6:26-27;93:6-18). Joseph Smith commented on the Bible's incompleteness: "It was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (TPJS, pp. 10-11). He later said, "Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…. We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain" (TPJS, p. 61). The Prophet Joseph further stated, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible; but the spirit of its messages still reveals enough of God's word to fulfill his appointed purposes. Joseph Smith summarized thus: "Through the kind providence of our Father a portion of His word which He delivered to His ancient saints, has fallen into our hands [and] is presented to us with a promise of a reward if obeyed, and with a penalty if disobeyed" (TPJS, p. 61). Latter-day Saints have continued to trust in the general accuracy of the biblical texts even though they know that that text may not always be correct. Thus, they study and revere the Bible, especially in the context of other scriptures and modern revelation, which have much to say about the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and as they study they ponder and pray that they may receive inspiration from God and come to understand the Bible's messages as they need to be applied in their lives (cf. Moro. 10:3-5)”

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Bible

 

[lonetree]

I suppose that I was trying to get at whether the Book Of Mormon could be a more authoritative text than the Bible. Or to put it another way, whether it is more inspired -or kept from error-than the Bible and especially the New Testament. I am aware that the translation conundrums are not new issues. That is why I started out with a little historical context. But it also has become more personal recently in my own reading, thinking and thrashing it out for myself. So the Book Of Mormon is seen as part of the whole package of Scripture; and not pitted against the bible in apologetics or missionary work. Okay. Thank you for the responses to my query. 

 

Edit: Edspringer, I do plan to read the 2 Nephi reference, just haven't got to it yet,...

Edited May 11, 2016 by lonetree
addition

[tesuji]

The  Book of Mormon text was directly given to Joseph Smith by God. And we still have the original English manuscript from Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith, a prophet, said it's the most correct book.  So the Book of Mormon is much more reliable than the Bible.  The main limitation of the Book of Mormon would be just the linguistic limitations of English.

Edited May 11, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

8 hours ago, lonetree said:

1) I suppose that I was trying to get at whether the Book Of Mormon could be a more authoritative text than the Bible.

2) Or to put it another way, whether it is more inspired -or kept from error-than the Bible and especially the New Testament.

3) ...So the Book Of Mormon is seen as part of the whole package of Scripture; and not pitted against the bible in apologetics or missionary work. Okay. 

1) "More authoritative"... hmm.  Interesting wording.  It is considered more accurate because fewer hands have held it so to speak.  And it is considered to be written for us in our day for the issues we face today, whereas the Bible was written for people in ancient days for their issues of their days.  While the Bible still contains eternal truths for all time, it contains much that is specifically for those other dispensations rather than today.  Does that help?

2) The Bible and Book of Mormon were originally equally inspired for the audience they were written to.  But the Bible has gone through more hands (and specifically, uninspired hands) than the Book of Mormon.  Joseph Smith said.

Quote

...the Book of Mormon (is) the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

This is a point we do bring up from time to time during missionary work.  And it is partially because of the topic of this thread.  But to dwell on the translation and imperfections of the Bible usually isn't helpful in Missionary work.

3) Yes, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are our "Standard Works" which constitute our canon of scripture.  All doctrine is measured against these books.  We cross-reference all four works together to get proper perspective on an issue.  The context of one source may lead to multiple interpretations.  But the context of several scriptures on the same topic from the same God who inspires us, helps us zero in on the proper meaning and interpretation.

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

Joseph Smith, a prophet, said [the Book of Mormon is] the most correct book.

We should be careful to keep this in the context of his entire statement and, more importantly, his intent.

The full quote is more along the lines of "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on the earth, and the keystone of our religion, and that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts them by [those of] any other book."

First, then, it's not that the Book of Mormon is bound perfectly, edited perfectly, or any other physical characteristic. It's not even that its wording or faithful transmission is 100% perfect (although I believe both of these to be the case, or very nearly so — after all, he, himself, edited it several times after this statement: "and it came to pass" was even more prevalent in 1829 than today). It's that the doctrines it contains, the guide for living one's life that it is the most correct. It's not even as much that the doctrines themselves are correct, as they are, but that when one lives them, that act will make one most suited for salvation.

Lehi

Edited May 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[NightSG]

22 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

First, then, it's not that the Book of Mormon is bound perfectly, edited perfectly, or any other physical characteristic

Obviously; in order to be bound perfectly, it would have to be written on applewood smoked bacon, with swiss cheese covers.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 5/10/2016 at 10:18 PM, lonetree said:

This causes me some consternation-to understate it-, but my question is more directed to those LDS among you. Do you see this as an opening in speaking to others about the restored gospel? Is the Book Of Mormon's existence an opportunity to move beyond such a problem(& I do see it as a problem). 

For me:

1)  Yes, if it is done intelligently and sensitively.  While apparently problematic passages definitely do exist, my understanding is that the NT books actually tend to show a pretty remarkable degree of conformity at least back to the second or third centuries AD when compared to other texts of roughly the same era.  I think, as Mormons, we have a bit of a tendency to dismiss any problematic parts of the New Testament by saying "well, we don't like that, so obviously it was a later addition" or "well of course, this key Mormon doctrine used to be there and must have been excised for nefarious reasons".  It may be that some of us need to be a little more willing to accept the text of the NT more or less as-is, and take a more rigorous approach to reconciling difficult passages.

For example, turning to the Old Testament:  Mormonism teaches that Jacob/Israel prophesied with remarkable clarity of his descendants' eventual enslavement in Egypt and deliverance by Moses.  The book of Genesis says nothing of this.  It's very easy for me, as a Mormon, to conclude "well, someone must have taken that out thousands of years ago".  But really, I should also consider the possibility that the book's author never included that anecdote in the first place.

2)  Well, we feel reasonably confident that, barring scrivener's errors introduced between production of the manuscript and the printing of the book, the (English) text of the Book of Mormon is the text that God wanted us to have.  We can't quite have that same degree of confidence in the Bible, the autographs for which no longer exist.  But, as has been pointed out--we regard both as canonical and therefore authoritative.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

We Saints take a lot of flak about "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. But I ask how our position differs in any significant degree from this statement by Evangelicals:

Quote

The Bible

We believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life. When we say inspired and without error, we mean we believe this to be verbal, plenary, infallible, and inerrant throughout. Bible.org statement on belief regarding the Bible.

 

Joseph expanded on the idea in the VIII Article of Faith when he wrote that he believed the Bible as it came from the pens of the inspired men who wrote it, but that "(I)gnorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing priests have committed manly errors."

 

We live in a day when men revere prophets, as long as they do not have last names.* But let a Joseph Smith or a Thomas Monson come along, and it's "No!!!!! He can't be a prophet! He has a last name!"

* "Last name" being a euphemism for "he lives in our day".

 

If our statement of faith in the Bible as the word of God is untrue, then so must theirs be because they say the same thing. Well, except for the capitalization of "the Word of God", which title belongs to Christ.

 

Lehi 

Edited May 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For example, turning to the Old Testament:  Mormonism teaches that Jacob/Israel prophesied with remarkable clarity of his descendants' eventual enslavement in Egypt and deliverance by Moses.  The book of Genesis says nothing of this.  It's very easy for me, as a Mormon, to conclude "well, someone must have taken that out thousands of years ago".  But really, I should also consider the possibility that the book's author never included that anecdote in the first place.

Why must you consider it?

The great promises made to Joseph (including those about the prophet of the Restoration) are not out of place, and the fact that this prophet would undermine Satan's kingdom and power would be more than ample cause for the adversary to entice men to remove it.

It was included in the Brass Plates of Laban, so if there was an emendment, it was done before 600 bc.

Lehi

Edited May 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

16 hours ago, tesuji said:

And we still have the original English manuscript from Joseph Smith.

Not quite. We have the original printer's manuscript, or almost all of it. This was the manuscript copied from the original by Oliver Cowdery and others and given to the folks at the Grandin Press for typesetting. It is a faithful reproduction of the original, introducing unintended mistakes in copying at a rate of about three errors per handwritten page, mostly minor scribal errors.

The actual original manuscript was placed by Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple cornerstone, which was unfortunately not waterproof. It was removed years later by Emma Smith's second husband, Lewis Bidamon, who found that most of it had been destroyed. We have about a fourth of the original manuscript left, primarily in 1 Nephi and the latter two-thirds of Alma.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Manuscripts

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Why must you consider it?

The great promises made to Joseph (including those about the prophet of the Restoration) are not out of place, and the fact that this prophet would undermine Satan's kingdom and power would be more than ample cause for the adversary to entice men to remove it.

It was included in the Brass Plates of Laban, so if there was an emendment, it was done before 600 bc.

Lehi

We know the brass plates contained the Torah and many of the writings of the prophets; but they may have contained entire other books of which we have no knowledge and from which Lehi, Nephi and Jacob derived the supplemental material they mentioned in their writings.  

I am happy to acknowledge that not every sacred book made it into the Bible; but when it comes to the reliability of a particular book:  one way I try to honor the sacrifice of legions of anonymous scribes over thousands of years, many of whom gave their lives to the preservation of those texts, is to assume the text was not doctored until confronted with unambiguous and irrefutable evidence that it was.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We know the brass plates contained the Torah and many of the writings of the prophets; but they may have contained entire other books of which we have no knowledge and from which Lehi, Nephi and Jacob derived the supplemental material they mentioned in their writings.  

They contained writings of Zenos, Zenoch (not Zenock, despite the spelling in the current edition), and Neum. Since we have no record even of the existence of those prophets outside the Book of Mormon, much less their writings, it seems clear that the brass plates contained books beyond our modern Old Testament.

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am happy to acknowledge that not every sacred book made it into the Bible; but when it comes to the reliability of a particular book:  one way I try to honor the sacrifice of legions of anonymous scribes over thousands of years, many of whom gave their lives to the preservation of those texts, is to assume the text was not doctored until confronted with unambiguous and irrefutable evidence that it was.

And I agree, the books we  have are largely intact. But the original question was regarding Genesis and the Joseph prophecy. So I say again, there is no reason to reject Joseph Smith's assertion that this specific prophecy was removed. I have the word of a prophet on the subject, and that stands in spite of any negative (that is, nonexistent) evidence that Genesis is all of what Moses wrote.

7 hours ago, Vort said:

They contained writings of Zenos, Zenoch … and Neum

Neum is likely Nahum. Not saying it's definitive, but there is evidence pointing to this conclusion. (I'm in a rush, so can't look it up right now, and it's not terribly important anyway.)

Lehi

[CV75]

On 5/11/2016 at 11:08 PM, lonetree said:

I suppose that I was trying to get at whether the Book Of Mormon could be a more authoritative text than the Bible. Or to put it another way, whether it is more inspired -or kept from error-than the Bible and especially the New Testament. I am aware that the translation conundrums are not new issues. That is why I started out with a little historical context. But it also has become more personal recently in my own reading, thinking and thrashing it out for myself. So the Book Of Mormon is seen as part of the whole package of Scripture; and not pitted against the bible in apologetics or missionary work. Okay. Thank you for the responses to my query. 

 

Edit: Edspringer, I do plan to read the 2 Nephi reference, just haven't got to it yet,...

In general, I take the Book of Mormon text to be more authoritative than the Bible on such subjects as the Restoration, the meaning behind the dreams and visions of its prophets in relation to the Lord's plan for His children, what occurred in the Western Hemisphere in relation to the testament of Christ (just some examples). It is certainly more authoritative as "another testament" than any other book!

Edited May 12, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

duplicate

Edited May 12, 2016 by CV75

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

And I agree, the books we  have are largely intact. But the original question was regarding Genesis and the Joseph prophecy. So I say again, there is no reason to reject Joseph Smith's assertion that this specific prophecy was removed. I have the word of a prophet on the subject, and that stands in spite of any negative (that is, nonexistent) evidence that Genesis is all of what Moses wrote.

I was not aware of (or at least, I don't recall) Joseph Smith's ever having asserted that the book of Genesis, specifically, contained that prophecy.  Do you have a source?

[LeSellers]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was not aware of (or at least, I don't recall) Joseph Smith's ever having asserted that the book of Genesis, specifically, contained that prophecy.  Do you have a source?

The JST, Gen 50 has 15 verses that the AV does not include at all. 

JST, Gen 50:24~38

Lehi

Edited May 12, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

That's a good source. 

Even then, though; I think it's a fair point to ask whether the purpose of the JST is primarily to restore the original text, or to restore a more perfect account of the events covered within the text (is the JST a textual restoration, or a midrash/mishnah, or a combination of the two)?

FWIW, I'm not the only one asking these questions. 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy