LDS attitude toward the JST

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

We read, but you are not careful how you post, only careful enough to try to avoid taking a position.

I have bought now extensive materials on the JST, and in reading them don't find it essential that members study them. They are of passing interest but not essential.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We read, but you are not careful how you post, only careful enough to try to avoid taking a position.

I have bought now extensive materials on the JST, and in reading them don't find it essential that members study them. They are of passing interest but not essential.

Given that this is how you treat much of the rest of scripture, I'm not surprised.

[SoCalCoug]

So, Tex, what did you mean by the quotation marks around "unfinished", anyway? Is it the same as us calling you "smart"?

Mommy, mommy! Everyone misunderstands me!

Why is that, anyway?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Why is that, anyway?

Same reason you play the martyr over on CB.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Same reason you play the martyr over on CB.

I didn't know SoCalCoug played anything on CB.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So, Tex, what did you mean by the quotation marks around "unfinished", anyway?

I meant just what I said ... if someone chooses to take the approach that the JST is unfinished (which is one legitimate way to look at it), it doesn't diminish the value of what IS there, given that Joseph did at least once call it finished.

The data was simply not available in 1898 to properly evaluate it, thus church authorities were legitimately cautious.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I meant just what I said ... if someone chooses to take the approach that the JST is unfinished (which is one legitimate way to look at it), it doesn't diminish the value of what IS there, given that Joseph did at least once call it finished.

The data was simply not available in 1898 to properly evaluate it, thus church authorities were legitimately cautious.

Would it be fair to characterize your position as such:

With the JST the Bible is inerrant?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Would it be fair to characterize your position as such:

With the JST the Bible is inerrant?

It's certainly less errant.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's certainly less errant.

I would agree. I just don't think it covers everything nor is it technically a translation. I see it as inspired material to help correct erroneous doctrine.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I would agree. I just don't think it covers everything nor is it technically a translation. I see it as inspired material to help correct erroneous doctrine.

I think of it as a first pass. I'm curious how much of the Bible Joseph Smith would excise altogether or how much of the Apocrypha should be in there with the aid of a little divine proofreading.