in reading Wikipedia, I see that some attention by UBY folks has been paid to the JST / 'inspired version' of the bible...
The article says that Joe might have referred to work by one Adam Clarke, a Methodist Theologian...

Q: Does the latest edition of the quad currently have JST sections?

I found the wiki article somewhat interesting, at least its 'off the beaten path'.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2024 11:12PM by GNPE.

The Adam Clarke story broke about three years ago, and since then has been the subject of lots of discussion. You can start here:

https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/jst-problems

And search elsewhere.

One more thing that the totally open and honest church has tried to hide for two hundred years.

"He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet."

Nice work if you can get it. So he copied existing sources. God plagiarizes in mysterious ways.

Request: try to put something about the subject in the subject line. That way we can remember what the thread is about.

The PoGP still has part of Matthew from the JST. It also still has the BoA. Neither are mentioned much if at all over the pulpit.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> The PoGP still has part of Matthew from the JST.
> It also still has the BoA. Neither are mentioned
> much if at all over the pulpit.


SMeetings could be 'Spiced Up' a bit when/if these were mentioned, especially if 'gators were present;

Would the Bishopric be seen as a bit uneasy-anxious?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2024 03:06PM by GNPE.

The use of the JST has bee minimized. I believe the RLDS owned it. They've probably sold that off too for a "mess of pottage".

What is the official LDS rationale for using King James Bible but minimizing the use of the JST "translation" of the Bible? If Joseph Smith "corrected" the Bible I don't understand why the LDS Church wouldn't start using those verses.