Transcription
Happy Sunday, everyone. Hope you're all doing great. Welcome to another episode of Sunday Musings, where we are talking about the Bible, not the supposed golden Bible that Joseph Smith was often accused of producing from the golden plates, the Book of Mormon, but rather the Bible itself that Joseph also altered in ways that are significant and important. And we're going to get into it.
Let's begin actually with an example. So if you were to look at John chapter one, verse one, it simply says, and you'll remember this, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Well, Joseph changed that one of many changes that he made to the Bible in what is often called a translation. We'll get into what does that actually mean? And is there a better word? But in the Joseph Smith translation, so-called, it says instead that in the beginning was the gospel. So we're going to talk about what was this project and what does it mean for us as saints today? How should we regard what Joseph Smith did with the Bible? And do we kind of fully understand everything that he actually did?
Let's begin with a quote from Bruce McConkie. He says that as all of us should know, the Joseph Smith translation or inspired version, as it is sometimes called, stands as one of the great evidences of the divine mission of the prophet. The added truths he placed in the Bible and the corrections he made raise the resultant work to the same high status as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. It is true that he did not complete the work, but it was far enough along that he intended to publish it in its present form in his lifetime.
Now, remember what he just said. He did not complete the work. We're going to get into that because there's some differing perspectives there that are rather significant. But as McConkie points out, Joseph saw this work with the Bible as being with the same high status as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. In fact, together in one of the revelations, it's simply referred to as the fullness of the gospel, the fullness of scripture included not just the modern revelations, but also the Book of Mormon and these inspired alterations to the Bible itself.
Let's begin by talking about why this even happened. What is it that prompted this whole project? Joseph notes in his journal, and he writes that during the month of April 1829 at Harmony, Pennsylvania, I continued to translate and he, Oliver Cowdery, to write with little cessation, during which time we received several revelations. Of course, this is working on the Book of Mormon translation. And Joseph continues writing, saying, A difference of opinion arising between us about the account of John the Apostle, mentioned in the New Testament as to whether he died or continued to live. We mutually agreed to settle it by the Urim and Thummim.
So the confusion here comes because of the statement in John chapter 21. So referring to John, but speaking to Peter, the Savior says, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that the disciple, John, should not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die, but rather, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? So there are questions that arise from, you know, how this is phrased in the New Testament. Did John die? If not, then what is his status? And, you know, if he did, then, you know, why did Jesus say that the way that he actually did? So this topic has been debated by different kind of Christian sects, denominations for a long time. Some scholars say, yes, he died. Others believe he still walks the earth.
So if you read D&C section seven, this is the resulting revelation coming from pondering on this, looking using the Urim and Thummim. In the preface, it says that the revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself. So when we think of, as I talked about in a not too long ago musing, the seer stone in the Book of Mormon, right? Similarly here with, in fact, I think I mentioned this particular revelation in that. Here is an example where Joseph translated what John wrote. It's referring to the actual record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself. But to everyone's knowledge, Joseph did not have access to said parchment. That would be a fascinating thing for anyone to claim possession of. That's not what happened. It was just, hey, somewhere in the world, John wrote this down and buried it. But the Lord is just directly telling Joseph Smith what was on it through the Urim and Thummim by his power, the gift of God. We call that translation in a very loose sense, but it's not what we conventionally understand translation to actually be.
So in June of 1830 is when Joseph receives Moses 1. So keep in mind the year prior, they're thinking this question with John, right? They get this revelation in response to the question, better understanding, you know, so you can go read section seven if you want to see what that result was. And now a year later in 1830, he gets Moses 1. In his journal, Joseph says that the Lord granted us line upon line of knowledge, here a little, there a little, of which the following, Moses 1, was a precious morsel. And so he gets this revelation of the writings of Moses. And we have that in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph wrote or said on a later occasion that from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled.
So, you know, think of the preface to section 76, which is the revelation received after translating John chapter 5 regarding the resurrection, right? Joseph is getting these revelations because he's reading through the scriptures and trying to understand what's in the Book of Mormon that they're translating. And he's got these questions which is prompting more revelation. And so he's saying that from all these different revelations, it's becoming apparent that there are issues with the Bible.
This leads a decade later to what we now call the Articles of Faith. Joseph is writing to John Wentworth, who is the editor of the Chicago Democrat, a newspaper in 1842. This is almost a decade after Joseph finishes the translation of the Bible. We'll get to that timeline in just a second. So that's a teaser for now. But it's almost a decade after Joseph feels like he's done with this. And he writes this letter to John Wentworth. This becomes our article of faith in which the 8th says, We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Of course, Joseph is working through this inspired version, this so-called translation, to correct a lot of the perceived problems.
And then we also know, finally, from 1 Nephi 13, which Joseph had previously already translated, that Nephi in vision records this. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches. For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious, and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. All this they have done, that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children and men. Wherefore thou seest, that after the book had gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book.
Okay, so Joseph clearly has lots of reasons and is getting lots of revelations that are leading him to say, we need to fix the Bible using his gifts, right? As a seer, as a prophet, as a revelator. So what was actually changed? Well, there were a variety of different things. Some were long editions that don't even have any actual biblical recording in them, such as the visions of Enoch, or the passage of Melchizedek, or the visions of Moses that kind of kick-started it, right? There's no documented biblical King James Version parallel to it, and yet Joseph is just producing these things in the inspired version or Joseph Smith translation.
There are some, like, more common-sense style changes in what Joseph did. For example, in Genesis 6, it says, And it repented the Lord that he had made man. So Joseph fixes that to say, And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man. That has way more clarity around it. So there's a lot of changes like that where Joseph is just fixing things that are just doctrinally and, you know, grammatically or whatever wrong.
There are some editions that are interpretive in nature where it says, like, in other words, you know, and something is added to clarify. So, for example, in Mark 9, it says, And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses. And so Joseph changes that to say, or adds on to it, And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses. Or, in other words, John the Baptist and Moses. Right? So it kind of adds that for context and clarification.
There are some passages where there's more, like, harmonization that are reconciling different things. For example, Matthew says, Judge not. And John says, Judge righteous judgment. And so in the Joseph Smith translation version, It harmonizes those two to make Matthew agree with John. So now it's judge righteous judgment rather than just judge not. Right? There's some other stuff, you know, grammatical improvements and technical things or modernizations of terms.
In fact, I have with me, I bought this years ago. This is the, produced by what at the time was the RLDS Church. This is the Joseph Smith's new translations of the Bible. And this walks through all the different changes. So what they do is they put this in, like, two columns. So you can kind of see the King James Version side by side with what Joseph was changing. And in some cases, it's all the same. And in some cases, Joseph is changing a lot. But it's kind of an interesting way to see side by side. So this was published in 1970 by the Herald Publishing House, which was the publishing, or maybe it still exists, of the RLDS Church, now the Community of Christ. So it's kind of this parallel column comparison of what Joseph did compared to the King James Bible. Fascinating, right? Because overall, there's over 3,400 verses in the King James, in the inspired translation that differ from the King James Version. Some of them are very minor, right? Some of them are very substantive, but over 3,400. And when you look at the New Testament, about half of the changes that were made were to Genesis. Whereas I think it's like 80% plus of the changes in the New Testament were made to the four Gospels. And so pretty significant. I mean, the Genesis edits in particular, when it comes to, like, doctrine and understanding the history of what was happening with these named individuals, there's a lot of meat there, right? A lot of New Testament stuff is harmonization, it's clarification, etc. But, like, the Old Testament is where we get the Pearl of the Great Price kind of stuff, where it's like, oh, wow, here's all this extra understanding about what actually happened.
Let's talk about how Joseph's work actually happened. He mostly worked on it from 1830 to 1833. He kind of poked at it the rest of his life for another 11 years. But look at, like, 1832. We have a revelation, it's in section 73, where it says, It's expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished. So, he's actively working on this. The Lord is telling him, keep going. In 1833, he gets a revelation saying that, It is my will that you should hasten to translate my scriptures. Of course, the Book of Mormon is done. By this point, the Lord is talking about this project, working on the Bible. Two months later, in a letter of July 1833, Joseph writes, Quote, We this day finished the translating of the scriptures for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father. Frederick Williams, one of the scribes, noted at the end of Malachi, you know, finished on the 2nd of July 1833. A few months prior, he had finished the New Testament, and then he went back to fully finish the Old Testament. So, July 1833, Joseph is saying this, his scribe is saying this, Hey, we're done, we finished, etc. And how he would go through is he'd go through a version of the Bible. It was the King James Version with the Apocrypha. And Joseph would go verse by verse, and he would check off verses as he went. Interestingly, he excluded the Song of Solomon, labeling it as, quote, Not inspired writings. But he's going through, and scribes are kind of annotating and writing as they go, and he's just checking the verses off as they go.
What's also fascinating to me is, if you really look at it, at the Doctrine and Covenants, dozens, I mean, I think close to maybe half, it might even be over half, but at least many dozens of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are in some way connected to this translation process. I mean, we've got the background on the Apocrypha, section 91. You've got the three degrees of glory in section 76. You've got the baptisms for the dead in 124. You've got revelations on the priesthood in section 84 and 88 and 107, right? So, so many of the revelations that Joseph was getting that are documented in the Doctrine and Covenants were because of questions that were being prompted by his deeper review of study and review of the Bible. And he's going through methodically and saying, well, this doesn't make sense or what's, what was really going on here? And so we have all these clarifications directly connected to him trying to understand the Bible. So in that way, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible are very kind of symbiotic or whatever, right? The one is, is the result of trying to understand the other. And he kept making changes, as I said, but the bulk of it was done in 1833.
So what happened after? Well, of course, in July of 1833 is when the printing press in Independence, Missouri was destroyed by a mob. Joseph, a decade later, is killed before the inspired version is actually ever published. So during his lifetime, even though the bulk of the work was done and he, you know, considered it finished, was never ultimately printed.
So Emma, after Joseph's death, retained the writing. She would not relinquish them to Willard Richards, who requested them of her. Of course, Willard was Brigham's cousin, was doing it at his behest, presumably. Emma, you know, the inspired version, like in the church today, in the LDS church, the Joseph translation is just almost like this. What's the right way to say it? It's not like an afterthought, but it's just, it's like very subdued, right? But during Joseph's life, this was like a very critical, important thing. This was the fullness of scripture on par at the same high level of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, really trying to understand and clarify the Bible. This was a very important thing. So Emma held on to it. And so after Joseph died, there was one of his friends named John Milton Bernheisel. And he asked Emma for permission to use the manuscript to copy notes into his own King James version of the Bible so that he could kind of have reference to what Joseph did. He was close with Joseph. This guy even went with Joseph to Carthage. He spent time inside the jail. He wasn't there when the, you know, when he was assassinated. But throughout about 1845, the springtime, John Milton is working on this project and documenting it down. The LDS Church has that Bible, Bernheisel's Bible, in its archives. It doesn't have all the corrections. Apparently it has less than half of them. So it's not useful for publication. But for many years, this Bernheisel Bible was the only source that the LDS Church had to the inspired version, again, this fullness of scripture that Emma held back because she didn't trust Brigham.
So in 1866, after, you know, Joseph Smith III is old enough and a lot of the kind of restoration saints that stuck behind are kind of, you know, saw Joseph III as the lineal successor to Joseph. And they're waiting for him not only first to be old enough, but later to be interested enough to take on that mantle. They organize, rather, in their view, reorganize the LDS Church. So you get the RLDS Church. Now, Emma gives the inspired version to the RLDS Church, to her son, Joseph, its president. The following year, it's published by the RLDS Church, 1867, as the inspired version of the Holy Scriptures. Fast forward decades into 1944, the RLDS Church issues a new corrected edition of the inspired version that eliminates some of the errors that were made, typos and things like that.
Okay, so then in the early 1970s, let's go to Joseph Fielding Smith. He is writing selections from answers to gospel questions. So people are writing in with gospel questions. He's answering them. They compile these into a course of study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums. And in there, Joseph Fielding Smith says, and I quote, This is Joseph Fielding Smith's explanation for why the LDS Church has not printed it and accepted it in full. Even though Joseph Smith himself, in 1833, said that he had finished. One might also argue that the following month, August of 1833, reveals that God considered it finished. This is one month after Joseph himself said it. Here we get from D&C section 94, verse 10, which says that the second lot on the south shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures. This isn't the book of Mormon. This isn't the book of Mormon. This isn't the book of Mormon. It's already been published. This is specifically talking about the translation of my scriptures, rather the fullness of scripture, the inspired version, the changes to the Bible that Joseph was making. So here in section 94, the Lord is saying, go build this to start printing them. You're only going to print something if it's sufficiently complete to be published. So if the Lord himself in August of 1833 was giving a stamp of approval on what Joseph had done up until that point, it would be safe to say, I think that the LDS church at any point since could publish it because the Lord had blessed what was the latest as of August 1833.
As I said, Joseph continued to kind of dabble at it because it never was printed. And so, you know, like any author, right? Like you can make a second edition, a corrected edition. The RLDS church, right? Decades later published another version to fix typos. So no wonder that Joseph was taking other occasion to constantly improve, but it was sufficiently complete in the Lord's mind to publish it.
Interestingly, Emma in 1867 letter to her son, Joseph said that my heart is made glad by your report of your progress. So that's interesting. The very year after Emma has relinquished the papers and the very year that Joseph Smith III is with church leaders, RLDS church leaders, actively working on the printing of it. Emma is saying in a letter to him, noting that Joseph Smith said, had concerns about the unfinished condition of the work. So here's where you get into the quibbles of like, okay, what does it mean to be finished versus complete versus final? Joseph Smith said he was finished. Frederick Williams said they were finished. The Lord said, go ahead and print it. But then Emma's claiming that Joseph still felt it was incomplete. That could be the fact that he felt it was finished enough, but would continue to go through more changes as he had more questions and read through it more, right? Like the evolution of revelation as you continue to work through this stuff, but it was sufficiently finished to be printed. Joseph thought so. The Lord thought so.
So then we get to go to 1979. It was included as footnotes in the LDS version of the King James version of the Bible. So the LDS church puts out its own King James version of the Bible. Members before were just using other King James version. The church is like, we're going to create our own and we're going to insert these little JST references that we got from the Bernheisel Bible. And perhaps by accessing the RLDS version directly that they had produced.
2004. So just over two decades ago, scholars from the LDS church and the Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS church, collaborate together on a facsimile transcription of the original manuscripts. So that was cool. And then, of course, last year, along with Kirtland Temple and other assets, the manuscripts are sold to the LDS church. So it's now in their possession. Hopefully the LDS church will put out its own. Be great if it was fully incorporated in the updated version of the scriptures where it's not just in little footnotes, but just go in and make the actual changes that Joseph did. Let's fully embrace those changes rather than bury them and have to try and pay attention to them. But those footnotes currently from the 1979 version onward don't have everything that Joseph did. It's not like the church footnotes, LDS church footnotes are complete.
For example, this is one of the examples that I write about in my book that came out a few months ago called The Slow Stain, which if you haven't got that, as you see the little graphics in these videos that I do, you can go to socialharmony. Socialharmony.org.org. Socialharmony.org. You can also grab it directly on Amazon. It's a very fun book to write. But in that book, I share in the polygamy chapter, this example. This is from 1 Kings 3, where you can see on the left the original King James Version, which says that if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days. This is, of course, talking to Solomon, but Joseph changes it to say, and if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes and my commandments, then I will lengthen thy days, and thou shalt not walk in unrighteousness, as did thy father. Complete 180-degree reversal. This scripture is not cited in the footnotes in the LDS Church version. And there are others, as I said, like this book is chock full of stuff, and many of them are minor. I'm not saying that they're all like doctrinal inversions like this 180-degree one. They're definitely mostly not. But there's a lot of stuff, and I would love to see these incorporated into the LDS Church's edition of the King James Version Bible. Joseph intended it for printing. The Lord intended it for printing. It's now in the LDS Church's possession. Let's get it printed. Let's actually use this stuff that Joseph did.
Okay, so one of the key scholars who's worked on this whole topic is Robert Matthews. And I'm going to read a quote of his where he talks about the inspired version of the Bible. He says that, It seems probable that the new translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories. Number one, portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors, but since deleted from the Bible. Number two, portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection. Number three, portions may consist of inspired commentary by the prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, or even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by likening the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. Number four, some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate. And then he concludes, The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the new translation as a divinely inspired document.
So, it's clear that Joseph and the Lord felt that these were the fullness of the scriptures, and whether it falls into one of the four categories, that it is an improvement to the efforts of the King James scholars at the time, centuries ago, who themselves weren't using original text, but rather an amalgamation of other translated Bible editions. The King James, of course, having his own motivations for assembling a group of individuals to produce the version that they did, and wanting to minimize any references to rebellious efforts against the political leadership of the day and so forth, because those were his kingly motivations. Whichever of the four different edits fall into that Joseph did, in my estimation, it's clear that what he produced is superior for us, according to the Lord, from what we have with just the base King James Version text. And, you know, there are critics out there who followed the Joseph Smith translation, because it doesn't perfectly match known manuscripts of the Bible. But the issue is that we don't have any original manuscripts of any text of the Bible, nor do we know the exact nature, which of those four sections each of Joseph's changes fall into. Or whether anything that Joseph did was meant to be a specific restoration of original text, or just the kind of doctrinal fixing of where he saw there to be a problem, based on other revelations that he had gotten. We have trends, you know, what we have in the Bible today is a translation of a translation of a modification of a copied document that a scribe then copied from somewhere else, that like these things were just flying around, these letters and papers and booklets and so forth that were later compiled. And then, you know, we have like the telephone game. The Bible is like a compiled version of the telephone game. Joseph's efforts then are not a translation in a traditional sense. He didn't consider himself a translator in an academic sense. It's more inspired commentary. And if this individual has so many fruits, evidencing his prophetic nature and role and his abilities, and all the witnesses that existed and the production of the Book of Mormon and all of the reasons why the Book of Mormon, I believe, is and has to be true. And all the supporting arguments that show that Joseph could not have produced it. All these things that, to me, testify that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. You know, buy your fruits, their fruits, you shall know them. So then I look at what Joseph Smith did with the Bible, and I have to say that is inspired commentary. Whichever of those four categories his various edits fall into, I don't really care. Because it's better than reading the King James Version alone. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I believe that his fruits clearly testify of that. So why would I not want to avail myself of his production that he felt was inspired, that he was commanded by the Lord repeatedly to do, that the Lord wanted him to print, wanted for us to have as the fullness of the scriptures.
So why don't we use the Joseph Smith translation? Well, according to the apologists at FAIR, they say, quote, There is no revelation that has directed the church to replace the King James Version with the Joseph Smith translation. Such a change would require both prophetic instruction and a sustaining vote of the membership. Huh? Was the King James Version accepted and embraced and imposed upon the church by revelation? No. It wasn't. In 1979, the church released its own King James Version with footnotes, but it wasn't, there wasn't some divine decree that it be thus, you know, that members of the church had long been using the King James Version.
In 1992, here is a statement from the First Presidency. This is then President Benson with his counselors Hinckley and Monson. And they said in 1992, and I quote, Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters, Latter-day Revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the presidents of the church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the church. In light of all of the above, it is the English language Bible used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That doesn't say anything about, we can't change it, we can't do anything unless there's prophetic instruction and a sustaining vote. It's not like the Lord ever said, you must only use the King James Version. Quite the contrary. The Lord told Joseph to print what he produced, this inspired version. It was a direct commandment. His production of the inspired version was a commandment. It's clear that the Lord wants this to be done. So for Pharaoh to be like, well, the Lord hasn't said anything. So until such a day, I guess we have to keep using the King James Version. Like, I don't understand that at all. As an administrative policy, the church could swap it out. And sure, fine. You want to, at the next general conference, have everyone ratify it? Go for it. They're going to do it. But the Lord has already said, print the dang thing. You know, maybe we could do it almost two centuries later and be very delayed in doing it. But I think we ought to do it.
Fair also says, by the way, that, and I quote, From a practical sense, adoption of the Joseph Smith translation could cause a stumbling block for converts. The doctrine of Joseph Smith, modern prophets, and modern books of scripture are already difficult for many Christians to consider. In this sense, the King James Version serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world. To that I say rubbish. Do what is right. Let the consequence follow. Don't sanitize our faith to appear more Christian. That's what the community of Christ did. I talked about this in a past musing a year or two ago called the Church's Core Beliefs Watered Down. I'll link to that in the YouTube description. Or you can go to sundaymusings.org and type, just type watered down. You'll find it pop up. Where I go through specific examples, not only how the community of Christ did this and deemphasize what Joseph Smith did to appear more Protestant and more generic Christian. Which they now are and have become. But then I give examples in that musing of how the LDS Church has done that. And trying to fluff various doctrines and sanitize and soften them to be more appealing to broader Christianity so that they can like bridge the gap and come in our way. Which to me is not the right way to do it. I think we need to, I'd probably say it in that musing, but I think we need to plant flags. This is what we believe. This is what we stand for. We boldly declare this doctrine. It is from God that will alienate people, but it will attract people. This milquetoast, like, we don't want to offend you. We want to pretend we're like you. Look, you know, we're deemphasizing all of our distinct doctrines because, you know, we don't want to be a stumbling block for converts. I think we would attract more and better converts by planting that flag and saying, this is what the Lord did. And all that confusion out there and all the disagreements among Christian sects and all the ridiculous things about, you know, infants who never had a chance, who died or condemned to hell and blah, blah, blah. But like all of that nonsense that you're hearing everywhere else. Here's our planted flag. Here's what we believe. Come learn about these beautiful, distinct, revealed doctrines. I think in my estimation with my marketing hat on and my kind of missionary sense, that that would be far better than trying to say, oh, well, if we adopted the Joseph Smith translation, it could cause a stumbling block for converts. Like, I don't, I don't like that. I don't like that at all. Right. We should lean into our uniqueness. We should be the peculiar people. We should plant our flags and say, here's what we boldly declare. And, and yeah, that will repel some, but it will attract many as well. So I find this stuff to be fascinating. You can go to, uh, you can find this stuff online. I think I got this on eBay years ago. You can easily find, if you search for Joseph Smith's new translation of the Bible or inspired version, you can easily find these and get your hands on them. I hope that Elias Church now in possession of the original manuscripts will consider a revision to its own Bible that will incorporate fully all of Joseph Smith's stuff. Whether he considered it complete or finished or whatever, like it's clear that he said it's finished. The Lord said, go ahead and print it. I think that is sufficiently a stamp of approval to say, let's incorporating it. So on that, I kind of disagree with what Joseph Fielding Smith was saying, that, that the manuscript was left with only a partial revision. I don't think that's accurate. And he said that the revision was not completed. I don't think that's accurate either. It was sufficiently finished in Joseph's view and according to the Lord to go ahead and print it. And I think we ought to, and I think it shouldn't be buried in footnotes. And I don't think we should only be footnoting a portion of Joseph's stuff. I think we should include all of it. I think it should be directly edited into the text. And if you want, let the footnote be the original King James version. Like that would be my preference. Let's own what Joseph did and boldly declare it and then say, oh, and here's what's in the original for purposes of comparison and study. If you want, that to me would be an amazing move. And, you know, maybe someone out there can take that up as a project. Maybe somebody has. I didn't look into if the, you know, our LDS church or anybody else has gone to that effort. That would be fascinating to do. But I'd love to see institutionally, authoritatively the church to, you know, implement and adhere to what Joseph Smith considered to be the fullness of the scriptures.
Tell me what you think. Have you ever read any of these other than the footnotes that are in the LDS scriptures? There's so much more out there that Joseph Smith did that is fascinating to study, to ponder, to consider why haven't we fully embraced that, especially now that it's in possession of the LDS church as of a year ago. Maybe things will change. Maybe they're considering it. I would love that to be the case. But let me know what you think in the comments and I will see all of you next week.