LDS attitude toward the JST
 

From George Reynolds, Secretary to the First Presidency, in a letter to C.J. Hunt, a member of the RLDS church. The letter is on First Presidency letterhead:

June 28, 1898

Mr. C.J. Hunt, Deloit, Iowa

Dear Sir:

I am directed by President Woodruff to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of June 18, and to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not use the revision of the Scriptures made by the Prophet Joseph Smith for the reason that he never completed the work. It was his intention to have gone all through the Bible again and make further corrections, but he did not have the opportunity of doing so. Consequently it is deemed an injustice both to the dead prophet and to the reader to place this unfinished work in the hands of the public. Though we may rest assured that the changes that he has made are correct, we have no assurance that he would not have many many other corrections in his second revision.

Yours respectfully,

George Reynolds, Secretary

Great find.

I have the JST in large volume with original manuscripts of the scribes.

Uh-oh. Tex told me that the "JS never finished it" theory was simply a common misconception.

Ding! It's amazing how fast you can come up with a complete mischaracterization of my comments. Like clockwork.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...1&postcount=31

I think I need to hire an intern to keep track of Lebowski distortions.

This was the attitude of the church for many decades, fueled by mistrust of the RLDS and their interpretation of the passages.

Fortunately, attitudes changed and we discovered the RLDS made a very effective good-faith effort toward this end. The JST is a precious gem that has finally earned much of it's deserved place, except perhaps on CG.

Nice.

Leb, you are a constant source of entertainment.

It's impressive how you constantly distort people's posts. Is it hard to keep that up?

"complete mischaracterization"? Hardly. I think that is a pretty decent summary of your argument as evidenced by your post. Thanks for clarifying.

Lingo, Lingo, Lingo. It's fun to mess with Tex. But you aren't even worth the energy.

Odd. You've managed to distort my statements more than once in the past.

Maybe that was by accident.

My post clearly indicated that there's a good argument for looking at it either way.

But I'm happy to educate you. I'd have only half as many posts on CG if you, Arch, and others would just bother reading a little more carefully.