Joseph Smith Translation Bible: Inspiration or Perspiration?

Before we get started, I want to state once again for the record that you know any video I publish for the podcast, um, it is my take on that subject, and I promise to be honest in sharing the understanding that I've come to and explain, explain why I believe that way. However, I am just a man capable of making mistakes, and I do not wish anyone to look to me for their answers without seeking confirmation. If you find this podcast to be of value to you, then listen to it. But study these things out for yourself and then ask God.

It's been my intention for, I think, two years now to eventually organize information on the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, also known as the inspired version among RLDS people. I believe the time has now come to open that can of worms. Not only for my brothers and sisters who come from the RLDS tradition, but also for those coming from the LDS tradition, since many are now exploring all things Joseph Smith. This could easily be a three-hour video, but I'd like to desperately avoid that. So, I have resolved to keep this as short as possible. And when giving examples, I will try to select just one for each issue.

The Joseph Smith or JST inspired version was the only Bible I knew for the first 30 years of my life. I am very familiar with it. It was the Bible that everyone in the RLDS church used. The tradition of the RLDS church is that the Bible was corrupted, but God had Joseph Smith correct it, resulting in what we called the inspired version of the Bible. About 10 years ago, I made the personal decision to switch to the New King James Version. I will occasionally use other versions as well, such as NASB.

From the outset, I'd like to say that there are some good things about the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. But I have long been aware of certain issues. And for me, the more I study the matter out, the more the JST inspired version has become a bit like the Doctrine and Covenants in that it is a mixed bag. In the final analysis, I believe it is much more problematic for the saints than any kind of solution, but we'll get into that.

And to start things off, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible only has the following verse about the priesthood inserted into the Bible: "Now, this same priesthood which was in the beginning shall be in the end of the world also." Genesis 6:7 inspired version. Now, whether you believe this to be true or not, this statement is actually not supported in any other version of the Bible or even actually in the Book of Mormon. But how did it get there?

If you watched my previous video on Sydney Rigdon, Google's AI had identified Sydney Rigdon as having a major role in the development of the priesthood and other church doctrines that began to evolve after he joined the church and became a part of the first presidency. So my question is, could Rigdon have influenced Joseph Smith to insert this line into the Bible?

So as we look into that, Joseph Smith began revising the Bible in June of 1830, and Sidney Rigdon joined him in that effort some months later after he had joined the church. According to RLDS historian Richard Howard, Rigdon took over from Emma Smith and John Whitmer in assisting Joseph with the work of correcting the Bible while Joseph was still editing chapter 5 of Genesis. I had to do some digging on the internet to verify this. And I also put the question to Google's AI. It stated the following: "Based on historic information about Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, Sydney Rigdon was most likely the scribe who penned the phrase, 'This same priesthood which was in the beginning shall be in the end of the world also,' which is from Moses 6:7." It continued by saying that Moses 6:7 corresponds to Genesis 51 in the King James version of the Bible and that Sidney Rigdon recorded most of the translation from the King James version of Genesis 51 onwards. Which means it has been pinpointed that at the very spot, the exact verse in the King James version of Genesis where Sidney Rigdon was brought in to assist is where we find this statement about the priesthood inserted. Fascinating.

Furthermore, Joseph and Sidney made additional changes to those chapters about two years later, and it appears that the statement on the priesthood was something added to the manuscript much later. Joseph had already corrected the chapter in Genesis without adding anything to the priesthood, but with the assistance of Sidney Rigdon, it would be added a couple of years later. This is important since it was the testimony of David Whitmer that they never heard of the offices of ministry in the church being called priesthood until closer to 1834 and that the notion of a restored priesthood originated entirely in the mind of Sidney Rigdon who worked hard to convince Joseph Smith of it.

For additional verification, I also put this question to Google's AI, and the answer that it gave was that this passage, "Now, this same priesthood which was in the beginning shall be in the end of the world also," is found in Old Testament revision 2, otherwise known as OT2 by scholars, and that this suggests that it was a part of the revision process that produced OT2. BYU studies indicate that OT2 was a corrected and final copy of the translation prepared for publication, suggesting that the changes within it were made much later on. So, this line was not in the original corrections Joseph Smith made in 1830, but could have been added as late as 1833.

I don't think it's wild speculation to suggest that Sidney Rigdon did far more than simply scribe in the process of changing the Bible. There is strong evidence to suggest that he took a very active part in helping Joseph make decisions about what revisions to make. Even as we find evidence recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants where Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon purported to have shared a vision while praying over a passage in the Bible.

You know, all of this talk about priesthood that we've been doing for two centuries now reminds me an awful lot of evangelical teaching on the rapture. Jesus never once talked about the rapture that Christians believe in. Nor does he ever use that word or the word priesthood. Don't you find that strange? While we see offices of ministry in the church, they are never referred to as priesthood. He chose disciples. He didn't establish a priesthood. The word apostle isn't a title of a position in the hierarchy of an organization. It simply means one who is sent. The 12 were called apostles simply because Jesus had personally sent them. And as far as authority goes, they had authority only because Jesus told them to go and do this job, and therefore they had the authority to do that job which he had assigned to them.

Like the word rapture, the word priesthood is not found in the New Testament except in the book of Hebrews when discussing the priesthood that Jesus himself carries as a high priest and by extension the royal priesthood that Peter talks about which both men and women carry when they abide in Jesus and he abides in them. Calling offices of ministry in Christ's church the priesthood is oddly missing from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Fascinating. God told Joseph that these two records together give us the full, complete gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ. So, how is the mention of priesthood, let alone to priesthood, simply missing from the doctrine of Christ? If it wasn't important enough for him to mention, how have we come to emphasize it so heavily that it is a cornerstone of our faith?

Just like the rapture, people will point to certain verses for support of this priesthood idea. But they must acknowledge that they have merely interpreted those passages about elders, teachers, and apostles in order to make them about the priesthood. Just like Christians who have conflated one passage about the gathering of the righteous, which is pre-tribulation, and another passage about what happens at the second coming of Jesus, which is post-tribulation, as support for a single fictional event that they call the rapture. For me, it is a major red flag. Anytime I see a word or phrase that is frequently used, often ad nauseam, being heavily emphasized by a particular sect, when in fact that word or phrase is not actually found in the scriptures themselves or ever used in the way that they are using it. Other examples of this include prayer language, the Trinity, once saved, always saved, and God will never give you more than you can handle. None of these words or phrases actually appear in the Bible.

While priesthood is mentioned in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it only exists in the Old Testament portion of those books as a type and a shadow to teach about Christ who is to come. But I covered all of this and much more in my lengthy video on the priesthood, which I will link to in the video description down below. So, I won't expound on it further. But to conclude this thought, it should be noted that the passage that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon inserted into the biblical text about the priesthood being at the end of the world is the only witness we actually have for this doctrine. Check it out for yourself.

I know what some people think Alma has said about the priesthood because that's what I thought too, and that's how I had been taught. It's what I should expect, especially when you have this line inserted into Genesis. But Alma never says the people will continue to be ordained into that priesthood, which he was speaking of the order of high priest after Christ comes. And in fact, we see in the Book of Mormon that this is the case and that even the 12 that he chose were simply elders in the church according to Moroni. And so this line inserted into Genesis is the only witness we have. And revelations on the priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants who come from the same men who inserted this into Genesis do not count as another witness. It's still one witness. God tells us repeatedly in all of our books of scripture that he will establish his word in the mouth of multiple witnesses.

The notion of the priesthood we teach in Mormonism is not found in the two sacred books that God said he would make one unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions and establishing peace. And we should keep in mind that on February 9th, 1831, the church received the following instruction: "And again, the elders, priests, and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in which is the fullness of the gospel." The Bible that is referred to in this revelation is not the Joseph Smith translation or inspired version of the Bible because it did not exist and would not exist for decades.

When we look at the instructions that God gave Joseph Smith and the other elders early on, and when we look at what is stated in the prophecies found in the Book of Mormon, we find that the cure that God had in mind for the misunderstanding men would have over doctrines in the Bible was the very plain teaching found in the Book of Mormon as a second witness and a companion to the Bible. It would help clear up any such errors. Furthermore, the elders of the church were instructed to go and preach the fullness of the gospel using the Bible as it was unmodified and the Book of Mormon serving as a companion to the Bible.

Now, we're going to get into some issues with what we find in the Joseph Smith translation, but listen, changing the Bible really does no good because no one will accept as proof passages from a Bible that you have modified to support your claims. One particular edit in Genesis 50 of the inspired version added a prophecy about a future seer which is a clear reference to Joseph Smith himself. Modifying the Bible to add a prophecy about yourself—that's particularly bold. I have a difficult time imagining, even in my wildest imagination, a God of intelligence and wisdom behind what is so clearly a huge conflict of interest. Even Jesus himself in John 5:31 said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true." So even Jesus knew he could not be the one to declare himself.

Again, there was really no need for Joseph to correct the Bible as one of the express purposes of the Book of Mormon is to make plain and easy to understand any doctrine from the Bible that the Gentiles have confused or argued about over time. I do believe there are potential corrections to the Bible text that are forthcoming, but those corrections won't be done at the discretion of one or two men in a back room without specific explanations given for each of those changes. I believe those corrections will come when the brass plates are discovered. Even then, I don't think the Bible will be changed or modified, but instead the knowledge from the plates will enhance or correct our understanding of the biblical text the same way the Book of Mormon does.

Lehi prophesied that the brass plates would eventually reach all nations, fulfilling a divine purpose. When this happens, the world will have the oldest copy of the Old Testament text in existence, dating all the way back to a time from before the Jews went into captivity of Babylon. What an exciting discovery that will be. The brass plates would reveal any corruption that has occurred in the Bible. For example, if there was corruption to the law of Moses, as I believe there has been. And I believe it will help clarify certain misconceptions about the nature of God. Its existence would also help provide evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. So, it won't come without controversy. It will no doubt be a sharp division in the world of archaeology when it is found. And many may even claim that it is a hoax, even as the Smithsonian has done with countless artifacts found in mounds, sometimes even by their own employees. And yet they are counted as hoaxes because it doesn't fit the narrative of what they expect to find. And so the brass plates will serve as a spiritual earthquake in the church and another opportunity for people everywhere to wake up and see the work of the Lord.

But until that happens, I testify to you that there is no truth of any importance that I cannot teach using the Christian Bible. At one point, Joseph Smith believed the same. He knew that they had to show the truth to other Christians using the King James Bible since most did not yet accept the Book of Mormon. One of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith was the time when a Christian minister visited and asked him, "What would you say is the main difference between the beliefs of your church and mine?" Joseph's answer surprised me. He simply answered, "We believe the Bible." That was not the answer I expected. But as you can imagine, the man became incensed by that statement, proclaiming that they too believe the Bible. And Joseph simply responded, "Then why don't you get baptized?" A simple statement followed by a simple question which revealed the truth using only the Bible as it is, unmodified.

You see, just like many churches today, even most Christian denominations do not perform baptisms or they say it's unnecessary despite the fact that Jesus and his disciples told us that we must do this. Changes made to the Bible by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon can never be used as proof for anything. And what if some of those changes created a doctrine or a teaching that is not found or supported in the Book of Mormon? Would that be a problem? Unfortunately, there are many issues with the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, some of which we will now get into.

In 2019, I was praying to God about a concern I had, and I heard the Holy Spirit quote a scripture from the Bible. At least I perceived that it was a scripture from the Bible when I heard it. The words were, "The entirety of your word is truth." This verse was an answer to prayer. So I wanted to go find that scripture. I searched for the verse in the inspired version as that was the Bible I used at the time. I couldn't find it. So I ended up looking in the King James version and nothing. And so I told friends about this scripture, explained that the spirit had spoken it into my mind. I explained how I could not find it and wondered if they had ever heard of it before. And I wondered, had the Lord given me a new scripture, one that the world didn't have?

After a few days, one brother in Christ located the mysterious verse. It was in Psalms 119 verse 160. All I needed to do was look in any other version of the Bible other than the King James or the inspired version because, as it turns out, the translation of this verse in the King James is a bad translation which renders the passage in a significantly less meaningful way. So here's how it reads in the King James: "Thy word is true from the beginning." While that is a true statement, it is also rather obvious. But every version of the Bible has since rendered a better translation of these Hebrew words, which is considerably more significant in meaning. It is a key to the scriptures in general, that to properly understand the truth of something is not arrived at just by this verse here or that verse over there or especially by cherry-picking the verses that we like, but instead it is the entirety of God's word when taken in together that will render the real truth of things. And indeed, I have noticed all through my life that every time people go off on a strange path, when they divert urge from one another and get caught up in deceptions, it comes down to holding on to a few verses and ignoring others. Every time I have seen it, over and over again, and even into my own life when I did this, this was the cause: not knowing the entirety of God's word and taking it all into the proper context, but pulling or extracting verses out of context and interpreting them in a certain way that you could not do if you just go look at the other scriptures.

There are people now that criticize Paul's writings, um, claiming that he is saying this or saying that, but they don't know the historical context of it, nor are they taking into account other passages that Paul wrote in his letters that would show clearly that he is not intending what they think he is saying. You have to take all of it into account, all of the teachings, and that will give you the truth because it's easy to take something out of context. The Joseph Smith translation or the inspired version of the Bible renders the same poor translation as we find in the King James because Joseph Smith did not see fit to correct it. There are a number of translations that aren't very good in the King James that Joseph never corrected, which raises questions about the correctness of the Joseph Smith translation.

Another issue is that the Joseph Smith translation attempts to correct passages in the Bible that are also quoted in the Book of Mormon. And in many of those cases, the Book of Mormon matches what we find in the Christian Bible, not what we see in the Joseph Smith translation or in the corrections that Joseph made. I even put this into an AI prompt. And the response was, "Yes, there are many passages in the Joseph Smith translation that differ from both the King James version and the Book of Mormon. There are passages that were changed in the JST inspired version that read differently from both the King James and also how the Book of Mormon renders that same passage." Why would this be? If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book, shouldn't the Joseph Smith translation fall in line with the passages that we find in the Nephite record? Remember, when the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah or any other prophet, they are quoting it from the brass plates, which we know were not corrupted by the great and abominable church. Therefore, if the Book of Mormon and the Christian Bible happen to agree, then shouldn't we reject any changes made to those passages by the Joseph Smith translation? And if the Book of Mormon renders it differently than both the King James and the Joseph Smith translation, then shouldn't those of us who believe in the Nephite record embrace how the Book of Mormon renders that passage while simultaneously questioning why the Joseph Smith translation failed to correct it?

Here is an example. Isaiah 48: verses 1 and 2 in the Joseph Smith translation reads, "Hear this, O house of Israel, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness. For they call themselves of the holy city and stay themselves upon the God of Israel. The Lord of hosts is his name." This rendering of the passage in the Joseph Smith translation reads the same as the King James. However, in the Book of Mormon, with the Nephites copying the text from the brass plates, this verse reads differently.

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth, nor in righteousness.

Now, all that's basically the same. But this next part, nevertheless, they call themselves by the holy city, but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts. Yay, the Lord of hosts is his name. Now, doesn't this rendering make more sense in the context of what is being said in the lines just above it?

In both the King James version and also the Joseph Smith translation, these people that are calling themselves by God's name, calling themselves by the holy city, but they swear not in truth, and they're not doing it righteously, but they stay themselves upon the God of Israel. And down below, we see that in the Book of Mormon from the brass plates, Isaiah is saying that they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, of course because they are not doing what they're doing in righteousness and they don't do it in truth. In other words, they are lying to themselves and to others and so they are not truly staying themselves upon the God of Israel. So that's interesting. I am inclined to believe this is the correct translation and what Isaiah was trying to get at.

So somehow or another this got changed or corrupted or something happened in the Bible where it does not read as it should and yet Joseph Smith failed to correct it even though he had translated this very same verse out of the Book of Mormon in First Nephi. I'll give one more example, one which is a little more dramatic. Joseph Smith made changes in Isaiah 29: verses 4 and 5. Therefore, we know he didn't just skip this verse. He intentionally made quite a few modifications, small modifications, but nonetheless quite a few small changes in the wording, but nothing that really changes this prophecy in a significant way.

The King James Bible renders it this way: Brought low, you will speak from the ground. Your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth. Out of the dust your speech will whisper, but your many enemies will become like fine dust. The ruthless hordes like blown shaft suddenly in an instant.

So this is how the passage reads in the Joseph Smith translation or the inspired version. And the revisions are highlighted here. And she shall be brought down, and shall speak out of the ground. And her speech shall be low out of the dust, and her voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit out of the ground, and her speech shall whisper out of the dust. Moreover, the multitude of her strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passes away. It shall be at an instant suddenly.

So, as you can see, there are significant changes here. I don't know that it really changes the meaning. However, the Book of Mormon in quoting this same passage from Isaiah reveals considerable differences between the modern biblical text that we have, which dates back to scrolls from around the time of Jesus and how the Nephites have copied the text as recorded in the brass plates, which would predate the Jewish captivity of Babylon. So, they are considerably older. The highlighted text is where it differs from the Joseph Smith translation.

And after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not. Yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit. For the Lord God will give unto him power that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground. And their speech shall whisper out of the dust. For thus saith the Lord God, they shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God. Wherefore, as those who have been destroyed have been destroyed speedily, the multitude of their terrible ones shall be as chaff that passes away. Yay, thus saith the Lord God, it shall be at an instant, suddenly.

This raises some major questions for me about the correctness of the Joseph Smith translation or the inspired version. One thing I find amazing about how Isaiah is quoted in the Book of Mormon, is that in some cases the changes that are made, sometimes just a single line being added, actually complete the Hebrew kayastic structure, something which Joseph Smith would have had no knowledge of. I even put this question to AI as you can see. And this knowledge was not known. It was only beginning to be studied by some scholars and they themselves did not have a full understanding. These things were not published. It was nothing that Joseph Smith could have gotten a hold of.

Furthermore, if Joseph Smith somehow knew about Hebrew kayastic poetry and implanted it into his made-up text, as I assuming people would think, then would he not have bragged about it at some point or used it as evidence for the proof of his book? But instead, Joseph Smith seems to forget about the Book of Mormon, what is written in there, and moves on to bigger and better things, other doctrines, and building up this church, which is daily straying further and further from the teachings of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. And when he goes to correct the Bible, he seems to have forgotten about it. And so for me, just look at the inspired version or the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible for all the proof you need that Joseph Smith did not know about Hebrew kaisms. And so this is for me just one more witness for the evidence and truth of the Nephite record.

When I decided I should try to find an example of how a difference made to the text of Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon created a Hebrew kaya. A little voice in my head told me to look at the very same passage in Second Nephi that we've just looked at. While I've seen examples of Hebrew kayastic form over the years, I've never personally tried to find one or map it out. I didn't know for sure if the thought to look at these particular verses came from the Holy Spirit but I decided to give it a try and I have to say I was astonished. Can you see the kayastic structure here? So I just started at the first line and highlighted it with a certain color and after they shall have been brought down low into the dust even that they are not. that even that they are not is only found in the Book of Mormon's rendering of this passage of Isaiah. It's not found in the Joseph Smith translation. And so it definitely makes it clear that being brought down low in the dust is actually referring to death. They are no more, whoever these people are. So I looked at that first line and then I looked at the very last line to see if I could find a parallel there. Wherefore, as those who have been destroyed have been destroyed speedily. And there we go. We have two parallels here. Both of these about a people who are wiped out, who are destroyed, brought down low. They no longer exist. They are not. And so I color-coded that. And then I went to the next line. Yet the words of the righteous shall be written and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard. and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. So I went and looked at the next verse coming up from the bottom. They shall write the things which shall be done among them and they shall be written and sealed up in a book and those who dwindled in unbelief shall not have them. Again, we see a parallel. We talk about the writings of the righteous. It talks about those who are dwindling in unbelief. Um, and what is interesting is there's a slight modification in the second line. Those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. Those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not have them. They won't have the writings, but they will not be forgotten. And so, you know, the Lameites, if they hadn't gotten a hold of the plates, they would have destroyed them. Uh, we would never have had them. Moroni had to hide them up. uh and so they had to be kept from them. They could not receive those things at that time. And yet we see in the second line down that they will not be forgotten. At one point this will come back to them when they are ready. So then we go down to the next line. For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground and their dust shall be low out of the dust. Um, and again, if you go one line up from where we are at, even as it were out of the ground, and their speech shall whisper out of the dust. See, it's a parallel. They're they're following. And then here we have the central point of the kaism. For the Lord God will give unto him power that he may whisper concerning them. That's a little bit of a mystery. Who is this that he is speaking of? That he will whisper concerning them. So that's something to look into and be excited about. Um, but more importantly, uh, just for the purpose of this video, there is no kaism in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. As we can see here, inspired version. Um, you get uh, she shall be brought down, her voice low, out of the ground, out of the dust, and the multitude of strangers will be like small dust. That's it. There's no kaya. And Joseph Smith knew nothing about Hebrew kaism. He never taught it, never spoke of it, knew nothing about it. It was just something that he had translated and then apparently forgot about because it's not found in the inspired version or the Joseph Smith translation.

Another problem with the Joseph Smith translation includes changes that were made that seem squarely aimed at attacking the truth that Jesus is God. Such efforts would be contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, which plainly state that Jesus is God who came in the flesh, that he is both the father and the son. And one clear example I can cite of such a change in the Joseph Smith translation is the Gospel of John, chapter 1, one of the most well-known verses of the Bible. If we read this chapter in any Christian Bible, a mystery concerning Jesus is revealed. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. John 1:1. Simple, beautifully worded, and so very powerful. However, in the Joseph Smith translation, we get this. I apologize if this offends you, but to me a rambling jumbled mess. In the beginning was the gospel preached through the sun and the gospel was the word and the word was with the son and the son was with God and the son was of God. These changes obliterate the clear testimony from John that Jesus is God.

This particular change and about 200 other changes that were made in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible also happened to perfectly parallel comments made in Adam Clark's commentary on the Bible which was widely available in the 1820s and the 1830s. It was a mainstay for Methodist theologians. Keep in mind that of all the Protestant churches, Joseph was most aligned with the Methodist point of view. He attended a Methodist congregation with Emma in the late 1820s and even attempted to sign up for membership uh to participate in a class that they were holding. And this may be shocking for some of you who have not heard this before, but it has been documented that around 200 changes in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible can be correlated to interpretations that are found in the Bible commentary that I just mentioned. And in fact, BYU professor Thomas Wement stated that the use of the Adam Clark's commentary while Joseph corrected the Bible was likely at the urging of Sydney Rigdon.

In light of the changes made to John chapter 1, it should also be noted that Adam Clark was a big proponent of the plurality of gods, so to speak. Uh that he believed that there are three separate persons, each with an individual and separate mind and thought, which together composed a trinity of gods who are united in purpose. This was Sydney Rigdon's belief as well. And we begin to see that this doctrine developed in the church as time passed with even the first vision eventually being modified in order to accommodate it. Brother Joseph should have stuck with the Book of Mormon on his understanding of who Jesus was rather than listening to Sydney Rigdon. But unfortunately, there was a change in how he thought about God. And it led to some confusing doctrines that would develop later on in Nauvoo.

There are many stunning examples of where the Joseph Smith translation borrowed from Adam Clark's commentary on the Bible. The Restored Gospel podcast did a great breakdown of it, but I will cite just one example in this video so we can uh wrap things up in a timely manner. In the Christian Bible, Revelation 12:6 tells us, "The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared to her by God where she might be taken care of for 1260 days." But the Joseph Smith translation or inspired version as some of you know it changed that verse to read. And the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God that should feed her there 1,23 score years. The Joseph Smith translation changed this prophecy from 1260 days to 1260 years. So, what might we expect to find regarding this verse in the Adam Clark's commentary on the Bible? Well, here's the note. The apocalypse being highly symbolic, it is reasonable to expect that its periods of time will also be represented symbolically, that the prophecy be homogeneous in all of its parts. The Holy Spirit, when speaking of years symbolically, has invariably represented them by days. This taken from Adam Clark's commentary on Revelation 12, which leads me honestly to ask the question, is the Joseph Smith translation, the inspired version of the Bible, a work of inspiration or perspiration? In other words, were these changes all made at the direction of the Holy Spirit? Or were some of these edits being made according to the wisdom of men? Even if the 1260 days in this prophecy really do symbolically represent years, why should the text be altered? That's not a correction, but rather a dumbing down so people don't need the Holy Spirit to explain anything.

Another example of a dumbing down of the scriptures in the Joseph Smith translation is found in 1 Corinthians 12 when Paul asked this question in verse 30. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? The Joseph Smith translation seeks to improve upon it by adding at the end, I say unto you, nay. While technically true, this addition is a completely unnecessary dumbing down on what was supposed to be a rather obvious rhetorical question. The entirety of chapter 12 and the 29 verses that lead up to this verse have already answered that question for us as Paul has revealed that we are all different parts of the same body each with their own unique purpose and function and how not everyone could be an eye for example or everyone an ear because then how would we be able to do the other things we need to do.

Now looking at the Joseph Smith translation uh from a broader perspective, Joseph and Sydney Rigdon made changes to only about 15% of the Bible. And more than half of the changes found in the Old Testament are all found in Genesis. And between both the Old and the New Testament, fully 20% of all of those changes are found in Genesis. So while Genesis saw extensive changes, other books saw far fewer and far less substantive revisions, which I find interesting since the Book of Mormon specifically states that the great and abominable church took away from quote the Gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious. It doesn't say anything about being taken away from the Old Testament. Therefore, I would expect that most of the substantial changes would be made to the gospels themselves. And indeed, we do find extensive changes um to the epistles of the New Testament and especially to the four gospels. But a significant portion of those changes are concentrated in the book of Matthew for some strange reason. So the first book of the Old Testament and the first book of the New Testament is where we find the largest concentration of changes. However, analysis reveals that the nature of the changes made to the gospels themselves tend to be smaller uh more often clarifying textual changes whereas changes to the epistles tend to be more substantive. The primary message of Jesus in the New Testament remains largely intact with some minor tweaks made here and there. Unfortunately, some of those changes disagree with what is written in the Book of Mormon. And for me, uh, this is a major red flag. And further evidence of Sydney Riggden's influence.

A couple of weeks ago, I put out a video uh regarding Sydney Riggnan's influence over the church uh which will help give you some context for what I'm talking about. And you can find a link to that video as well down in the description of the video below. So, here's one example of what I'm talking about in terms of changes made to the Gospels that are not supported by the Book of Mormon. In Matthew 7: verses 2 and 3, Jesus says, "Judge not that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again." However, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible renders it, "Judge not unrighteously that you be not judged, but judge righteous judgment." However, the Joseph Smith translation, the inspired version, does not correct Luke 6:37, which states, "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven." And more importantly, in third Nephi, we find the words of Jesus Christ recorded in purity and translated by the gift of God. matching exactly what we find in the book of Matthew and every Christian Bible other than the Joseph Smith translation. Verily, verily, I say unto you, judge not that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again. I need to testify that I have never once seen this changed to Matthew 7 in the Joseph Smith translation put to good use.

Over the years, I've had numerous people from the RLDS tradition with the inspired version in their hand argue with me that God allows and even expects us to judge other people using this so-called righteous judgment. Brothers and sisters, if such a thing is possible, it must surely come only through someone who has truly been born again, who has died to self, who has the love of Christ in their heart towards the one that they are judging. and that that judgment could come only by way of the Holy Spirit and not according to our wisdom or what we think we know about a situation. You know, I can think of no stronger warning from the lips of Jesus than we find in Matthew 7. These words should put the fear of God in us anytime we imagine that we can rightfully stand in judgment of another person. Listen to what these words are saying as they stand in both the Christian Bible and in the Book of Mormon. The two witnesses God said would correct our understanding, keep us on the right path. It is a promise from the Lord God Almighty to you and to me. Listen, judge not that you be not judged. For what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And what measure you meet out shall be measured to you. Listen what he is saying. When you stand before God at the last day, if you do not want to be judged harshly, do not judge other people harshly. If you want to be forgiven, forgive others.

When I was a teenager, my grandmother, who passed away some years ago, taught a class in our congregation in Michigan on how Joseph Smith's inspired version was superior to other Bibles. Each week, she would compare and contrast differences between the King James version and the inspired version. She was passionate about the topic, and she did a wonderful job. I had no reason at that point in my life to doubt her and I know that she was sincere in her belief. Many of the examples uh that she provided often centered around certain uncomfortable passages, most often from the Old Testament. You know, the kind of stuff that makes people cringe, like passages concerning slavery and whatnot. And the

Inspired versions would sometimes change or soften the wording a bit to be, I would say, a little more in line with modern sensibilities. Numerous times it occurred to me how convenient some of these changes seem to be. And I also thought to myself, just because we might personally prefer to see some of these passages modified didn’t necessarily mean that they ought to be changed.

Now, I do believe that something was removed from the testimony of the twelve apostles as the Book of Mormon indicates. I believe that because of the testimony the spirit has given me of the Book of Mormon and also because we do not actually have the testimony of the twelve apostles in the Bible. You know, regarding the Bible, an angel told Nephi that it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord of whom the twelve apostles bear record, and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. And it goes on to say that, and after they—speaking of the writings of the twelve—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.

Now, here we’re talking about a writing that comes from the twelve, but we have only four gospels. And two of those, Luke and Mark, are not apostles. I’ve often wondered if there was a document, possibly a unified gospel, that the apostles contributed to and signed off on once Judas was replaced; a document that may have been suppressed or disappeared from history. If so, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible did not restore it. The Gospel of Jesus in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon is the same, only stated more plainly in the Book of Mormon. Since Jesus had already accomplished his work and did not need to hide certain things from his disciples in the Americas, things that the apostles in Jerusalem would only come to understand later after the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The whole book of Acts and in the letters of Paul is a revealing and, uh, unraveling of the mystery of what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross really meant in terms of many things, including the law of Moses. And so it unravels slowly, even as things were revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. But in the Book of Mormon, Jesus lays it out very plainly with nothing hidden, for his work had already been accomplished and there was nothing left that needed to be hidden.

There are portions of the Bible, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, that I do feel to be corrupted, and it’s mostly within the first five books of the Bible in the Old Testament. But when I investigated those things, I discovered that we have copies of those texts that predate the Church of Rome. And so that stumped me for a couple of years because we had always been taught by the church to blame the Catholic Church. And when I finally inquired of the Lord, the spirit spoke and said, “Have you considered the great and abominable church of the Jews?” The additions to the Bible in the Joseph Smith Translation that are most significant are found in the book of Moses. So my question is, why modify the book of Genesis? We have copies of the book of Genesis that date back to the 3rd century BC, uh, predating the Church of Rome by nearly 700 years. Therefore, the Catholic Church could not have removed information from Genesis as we have been taught by Mormonism. If that information was removed from Genesis, it was removed by the Jews.

It would be years before the Lord began to open my understanding on that front. But it was a seed planted. And in time, I would discover not only historic and scholarly evidence for this, but evidence found in the biblical text itself. As several of the prophets of God testify of this corruption, even as Jeremiah tells us in chapter 8 about the lying pen of the scribes that has made the law into a lie. But an exploration of that will have to wait for another day.

Here is the question I would put to you: Wouldn’t it have served everyone better if Joseph Smith had simply made his own study Bible where he could put in footnotes at the bottom half of each page his understanding of certain passages or any revelation or additions he felt were missing from the narrative? In it, he could have explained how he came to that understanding. As it stands, we have no explanation for most of these changes, and some of these changes make no sense and even contradict the Book of Mormon. So, I see this as highly problematic.

As we get ready to wrap things up, I want to share one more example of a change made, uh, to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible that I find nonsensical. But I also want to share one change that I found truly inspiring. In Matthew 10:16, Jesus says, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” However, in the Joseph Smith Translation, or the inspired version, it reads this way: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise servants, and as harmless as doves.” I once heard a sermon, uh, where this verse was touted as an example of how the Joseph Smith, uh, inspired version was superior to all other Bibles. I found the point to be ridiculous. It seems this change was made because—what? Didn’t like Jesus using a serpent, uh, as an example for his disciples? Are snakes inherently bad? Is it the association of a serpent with Satan in the Garden of Eden in Genesis?

It should be noted that in John 3:14-15, Jesus directly compares the brazen serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness as having been symbolic of himself and his destiny to be lifted up on the cross. The Greek word used for wise here is a word I can’t pronounce, which means to be prudent, sensible, or shrewd. In the context of what Jesus is telling his disciples, he was emphasizing the need to be thoughtful, discerning, and strategically cautious in their mission while also remaining innocent and compassionate. And this makes sense to me. If you’ve ever come across a snake in your yard, and I have many times when I lived out in the country, uh, usually by the time you notice them, they’re already slinking away from you. You may not even see them so much as you simply see movement in the grass as they slither away. And what they are doing is trying to avoid unnecessary conflict. Anyone could edit the Bible text and change something that they don’t like or they don’t understand, but that would be a tragic mistake. Jesus is also symbolized as a lion in the Bible. But so is Satan. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is described as a roaring lion who is actively seeking to devour those who follow God. These things are merely symbols. Serpents aren’t always and forever evil simply because of what is written in Genesis. And what we find in Matthew 10:16 is that Jesus is trying to contrast two things found in nature, two different kinds of animals. He is using nature, as he often did in his parables, to explain how his disciples should behave. When contrasting two things, you usually stick to a theme. In this case, animals and nature. So the message here is to be strategic and wise in facing opposition like a serpent in nature while maintaining the peaceful and loving demeanor like a dove. And again, this makes complete sense. It’s wisdom. The Greek words for serpent and servant are not the least bit similar in the Greek language and couldn’t possibly have been confused in translating the Bible from Greek to English. So that can’t be a reason for its supposed correction. Furthermore, what is inherently wise about a servant in any case? Like any human being, a servant can be wise or unwise. How does this even make sense? This change to the Bible simply goes down as one of the numerous changes in the Joseph Smith inspired version that makes no sense to me.

Now, I would also like to share one of the best modifications, for my money, uh, that is found in the Joseph Smith Translation. I’ve mentioned this in other videos before, but it’s in Mark 9:1 of the Inspired Version, and it reads, “And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John, who asked him many questions concerning his sayings, and Jesus leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves, and he was transfigured before them.” The part, “who asked him many questions concerning his sayings,” is added into the Joseph Smith Translation. The first time I read this passage, I remember the Holy Spirit just lit upon those words and I knew it was true. I believe Joseph received an understanding from the Lord about this. He may have asked the Lord why he had chosen these three men out of the twelve, and perhaps then God answered him. Knowing that God is no respecter of persons, the only reason I can imagine why Jesus would choose these three men over the others was not favoritism, but because of their response to him. In my mind, I have often pictured that after the other disciples fell asleep, these three would keep Jesus up late at night, uh, because of their curiosity and desire to better understand the things that he had taught. For me, this insight is precious and I will forever be thankful because it encouraged me to ask God many questions.

Now, having said that, I do not believe that this was a correction that needed to be made to the Bible. I don’t believe the Gospel of Mark ever shared that information. It wasn’t removed. This addition by Joseph Smith was an insight gained by personal revelation, I believe. And as such, it would have better served as a footnote at the bottom of the page as part of a possible Bible commentary by Joseph Smith, which we could have benefited from. I don’t believe that God ever asked Joseph Smith to correct the Bible, but if he did, that’s not what we ended up with.

While I keep a copy of the Joseph Smith Translation, what we call the inspired version around for reference, it’s no longer my Bible of choice. Gone are the embarrassing days of quoting from the inspired version to a Christian friend to try to make a point, only to end up with egg on my face when I find out it’s not actually in the Bible. But in any case, the Book of Mormon serves, uh, as a perfect companion to the Christian Bible, covering those things in perfect plainness that might otherwise be maybe a little less plain in the Bible. But if you want to engage other people outside of your faith and share truth from the Bible, you can’t use a Bible that has been modified to support the doctrines of your church. That’s not going to fly with people. It shouldn’t even fly with you. As I stated before, there is no truth of any importance that I cannot show and is not at least strongly hinted at in the Bible without those edits. We should get to know the real Bible so that we can be ready to make an answer why we believe something using only the Bible as other people accept it.

Sadly, at one point there were even some changes made to the Book of Mormon later on, uh, that seemed to take aim at better aligning certain passages to the new church doctrine. That should tell you all you need to know about what happened to the church. That generation did not repent, and that was the requirement that God put upon them that they must repent before he would bring the church out of the wilderness. I believe the church not only remained in the wilderness but it also came under condemnation. The devil, rather than fighting with the saints, effectively joined the church that men organized in 1830. He gained a foothold and began to corrupt it primarily by adding new doctrines and new mysteries designed to steal the focus off of the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And each year it seems Satan got a greater and greater hold of the steering wheel, driving the church to a place far removed from the path that was laid out by our Lord and Savior.

Here’s my closing thought: Rather than change the scriptures, we do better to let the scriptures change us. Isn’t that the proper order of things? Until next time, God bless. [Music] [Music] Okay. [Music]