Talk:Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

message: Folks -- forgive my intrusion, but as just another reader checking this article, I must say: referring to Joseph Smith as "the Prophet" throughout makes it a difficult and frustrating read for somebody who is less, well, sympathetic to the subject matter. Setting my own feelings aside, I think that the article reads better and makes a better impression if it's presented from a more neutral viewpoint. I would say the same thing on a page that referred to Mohammad as "the Prophet" , or Jesus as "the Messiah" all the time -- I am sure there are many examples!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.245.208 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yikes!

message: This should be moved to Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Any thoughts? B 00:23, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
:Fine by me. Go ahead and make the change. Visorstuff 01:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  20 years later, I oppose this change. "Joseph Smith Translation" is a description used by a specific sect of Mormonism. My understanding is that Smith called it the "Inspired Version". If that is correct, that should probably be the title of the article.Rscragun (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joseph Smith himself referred to it as a translation, and it was referred to as a translation in the Doctrine and Covenants. Epachamo (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Moved from the article:
:There are two sections of the work that Smith dictated twice at different times in his life: one in the Book of Genesis and another in the Gospel of Matthew. These duplicate manuscripts contain many of the same revisions to the King James Version, with some substantive additions or changes in one but not in the other.
::I once read a BYU Studies article comparing these two manuscripts, but I can't find the reference to it (--COGDEN)
::This is a weird statement and does not read well - it makes it sound like he gave them word for word on two different occasions. There were in fact many sections of the bible that he translated more than once. The first sixteen psalms were translated a number of times, but the second sixteen were compeltely untouched (as were a section later in the Psalms). The bulk of the psalms were done mainly once or twice. Isaiah, John, Revelations and Paul's letters also received a good deal of attention on multiple occasions. The process was still incomplete at the time of his death, he was still making edits and changes and translations at that time. Please clarify as I have no idea where you are going here. This is another one of my areas of primary research, so I'm curious to your point. Have you ever read "A Plainer Translation" may be a good place to start for background --Visorstuff. -->
:::That's what happened, apparently, in this case. The BYU Studies article I'm talking about (and I'm looking for it--I think I copied it once, but I can't find the copy) examined two recently-available manuscripts that Smith apparently dictated word-for-word, where he went over the same passages and dictated two different versions. I think this is important to include here because it shows (and this is what the BYU article concluded) that Smith's work was not a precise restoration of the "lost" text of an earlier document, but an enhancement to the Bible that included explanations and elaborations, depending upon what he felt inspired to say at the time he was "translating".COGDEN 18:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying. I was under the impression that the article I read regarded some new finds, but obviously Robert Matthew is the big authority on the JST, and he would probably cover it in his book. I've given up looking for the article--maybe it wasn't in BYU Studies, but in some other journal (I read it last fall) and I'm not going to be near BYU any time soon, so I'm just going to revise what's there and state something generic. If it still doesn't sound right, you can go ahead and change or delete it.COGDEN 01:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Twice-translated parts

message: User:Benefros stated that he couldn't find evidence for Smith studying greek - may want to do a more thourough search next time, but thanks for the edit anyway - keeps us honest. Here are a few sources:
*Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (commenting about greek word renderings), pages 300,309,372...
*Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol 1, "Bible Scholarship"; Vol 2, "Kirtland, Ohio"; Vol 3, "Scripture" (this one states he studied, hebrew greek and german (german most likely to understand Luther's changes to the text that is used today). See below for excerpt on Kirtland.
*Answers to Gospel questions, vol 2, p 86
*Anti-mormons including the Tanners also agree.
*Amatuer Mormon apologists also point to it. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, KIRTLAND, OHIO
:As a result of this and other divine commands, Joseph Smith in 1833 invited about twenty elders to attend a School of the Prophets. Following the initial sessions of that school, Church leaders and members established a school of the elders, a grammar school, and various private schools, in which adults and youth studied theology, philosophy, government, literature, history, geography, English grammar, penmanship, arithmetic, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1836 more than one hundred Latter-day Saints commenced studying Hebrew. Women attended and taught school in Kirtland, and studied various subjects with their husbands. 
Incidentally, has anyone got a hold of the new JST manuscript compliation book? Interesting to see the blots, the marks, the pins and the edits. Very interesting...-Visorstuff 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anti-Mormons?"  What do you mean?  Is that a universal term, or is it a label placed on them by one side of a debate?   If anything, they would be "Ex-Mormons."--Zach Collier (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the previous comment was listed long ago, it's worth mentioning that Anti-Mormonism is/was a self-attributed title. It can have a broad or general scope, but it's exactly that: anti (against) Mormonism.  An Ex-Mormon would be one who was previously Mormon. One can be either, both, or neither. ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  03:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek Delete

message: This article, like many others on this subject, uses far too many weasel words and phrases. I offer you an example from the "content" section: "The majority of corrections are minor clarifying statements and language modernization."  
"Corrections?"  Who says they're corrections?  Some may say they are, some may say they aren't.  Furthermore, what are they correcting?  
What about "clarifying statements?"  Was what was written before unclear?
Modernization... was what was written before archaic?
Please avoid this kind of biased language or weaselly language.  Andaleandale (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: The "content" section here is incoherent and lacks any kind of insight to the content of Smith's translation.   The section is nothing but back and forth diatribe and gives no concrete examples of the differences between Smith's translation and other KJV translations.  Thus, I delete this section.  Someone write a content section that's actually about this text's content... not a section where a Mormon writes one inflammatory statement, and a Mormon hater comes right along using weasel words and flames right back.  Andaleandale (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content section lacks... content

message: They seem like a pro-JST vandal's work... Personally, I think that, while the JST is inspired and accurate, the JST is not meant to replace or supplant, but rather support, the KJV. Granted, this is from an LDS point of view... (Whoops, forgot to login) Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are The [citation needed]s really needed?

message: Joseph Smith stopped working on the Bible's translation over a decade before his death. Its work lasted from June 1830 to July 1833. In the History of the Church, 1:368–69, it explains  “We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father,” and “having finished the translation of the Bible, a few hours since.” Thus, this article could use a significant revision. As far as I can tell it's only the LDS church who says the translation wasn't complete, and this is used to explain any apparent error or contradiction in this version of the Bible. Please use some critical thinking when writing articles. The LDS church has its own website to publish their official church history, this webpage isn't for that. 69.169.132.34 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actually it was complete

message: I've added a brief section on the meaning of the term "translation" in 1828, sourced from a dialogue between an Evangelical and LDS, which I presume is reliable. Generally if it refers to the book it should be T. If "translation" means "revision" then it should be "revision" to be NPOV, see :wikt:translate and :wikt:revise In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use capital T for Translation 

message: I've removed this section for now. Criticism is welcome in this article, but the only argument in the section shouldn't exist, since it is a straw man argument; the statement that it is a faulty literal translation is true, but completely irrelevant when the translation not ever claimed to be literal (the revision process being extensively mentioned in the article). ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  03:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored this section. It isn't for us to judge whether criticizing the very intention of "repairing" the Bible is valid or not. I've added context to this section to clarify that's the position of most other denominations and better explaining this specific sort of criticism. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: To me the sentence In 1944, the CoC Church brought out a carefully prepared “new corrected edition.” is rather jarring. It was not called Community of Christ back then. Why not refer to it as RLDS from 1872 to 2001, and Community of Christ after 2001? What do others think? SJK (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Avoidance of anachronistic terminology, there is already a decided guideline to support exactly what you propose. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community of Christ vs. RLDS anachronism 

message: Regarding this revert...the perspective of the LDS church is pretty well represented by the rest of the article. This translation is by its founder and first prophet and this section explains the precise doctrinal position. The "a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth" does not really add any information to that. It comes across as the opinion of one super-hyped person. It's not balanced by the opinions of anyone who doesn't particularly like this translation, though it does not seem worthwhile to just quote someone dissing it without giving reasons, just as this quote hypes it without giving reasons. I think the easiest fix is just to drop the quote. Thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever since 2017 (and a little bit before) when it became clear that Adam Clarke was a significant source of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, there has been an effort to downplay the significance and esteem the translation played in the Church. I feel like the 'super-hyped' opinion is a valuable historical perspective that should be here, especially given the prominence of that individual within the LDS Church belief system. I think the best fix should be to remove the "perspective of the LDS church" from the rest of the article, and put it into the "LDS Church viewspoint" section.Epachamo (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant. LDS use of the JST/IV has changed over time, and it is not sufficient for the article to only describe current LDS attitudes, which would be giving undue weight. While I agree that a quote from McConkie may not be the most thorough way to represent a history of support for the JST/IV, it seems better than having only the current official position of the CoJCoLDS.Rscragun (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  McConkie quote 

message: What is the purpose of the use of the word “murdered” in the first sentence? I am not questioning its truth—merely its relevance or value in this context. The article linked through that word is titled “Death of Joseph Smith” and not “Murder of Joseph Smith”, so why not say “died”? I am suspicious that this word choice may create undue sympathy for Smith in the reader, making his characterization of the JST/IV seem more believable. I will make the change to “died”, but I would welcome some discussion if others think the “murdered” description improves the article. Rscragun (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at how this is treated in other articles. For example, Nauvoo, Illinois says “After Joseph Smith's death in 1844”. Rscragun (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word “murdered” 

message: Requesting Administrator help to resolve the ongoing edit war between myself Epachamo and Marspe1. I attempted to create a request for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Interpreter:_A_Journal_of_Latter-day_Saint_Faith_and_Scholarship, but this was rapidly archived before anyone really had a chance to comment. Request help on a way forward. Epachamo (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See the various forms of dispute resolution. Generally, administrators do not resolve content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for administrator