Bible Bombshells, Part 2: Shocking facts about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible!
In Part 2, we use what we learned in the previous article to compare and contrast with the JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Did he restore lost plain and precious things as he claimed?
Before reading this article, I strongly recommend that if you have not already read Part 1, that you do so. There is a lot of background information and context in Part 1 that you will need to make sense of Part 2.
This article uses many acronyms to refer to different scriptural texts. Understanding a bit about those texts and how we refer to them will be important background information for this and a following article.
Texts and Acronyms:
KJV (King James Version - 1769 edition) is the version of the bible used by the LDS church. It has been a seminal and enduring force in American Protestantism, shaping theology, worship, and cultural identity from the colonial era through modern times with its distinctive language, literary quality, and deep-rooted tradition. Created in the early 17th century by King James 1st for the Church of England, its Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (See below). The New Testament portion was translated from Greek manuscripts compiled during the Renaissance (called the Textus Receptus). It was created as a primarily Protestant Bible but has also been used by some Catholics. One would think that perhaps there are other or newer Bible versions that would be more accurate and could be used by LDS instead. Still, a quick check shows that the same protestant edits made to the KJV also exist in other Bibles produced by protestant groups in America, like the CBS (Christian Study Bible- including the Ancient Faith edition).
NKJV (New King James Version 1987) - a modern English translation of the KJV that updates the archaic language of the traditional KJV while preserving its underlying textual tradition, serving as a crucial bridge for contemporary biblical textual analysis and study.
LXX (Septuagint) is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE. It was created to provide a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, enabling Hellenistic Jews (Jews who were culturally Greek - predominantly Diaspora communities in Egypt) to access and maintain their religious traditions in their common language. The Orthodox and Latin Catholic churches still use the LXX. It is vital to biblical textual analysis for offering insights into early Jewish textual traditions and influencing early Christian scriptural interpretation. It is the version of the Old Testament used by early Christians and is centuries older than the MT.
DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) - a collection of ancient Jewish manuscripts found in caves near the Dead Sea, dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, and are crucial to biblical textual analysis because they contain some of the earliest known copies of biblical texts, offering insights into the evolution and transmission of the Hebrew Bible.
MT (Masoretic Text) - The authoritative medieval Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible, meticulously compiled and maintained by Jewish scribes (the Masoretes) from the 7th to 10th centuries CE, and it is pivotal to biblical textual analysis because it forms the basis for most modern Protestant translations while reflecting centuries of textual tradition and standardization.
OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) - A standard version of the Bible used by Eastern Orthodox, particularly in English-speaking countries. The OSB uses the Septuagint for the Old Testament and the NKJV (New King James Version) translation of the New Testament.
OT (Old Testament) - The first section of the Christian Bible, the OT is comprised of sacred Hebrew/Jewish scriptures that chronicle the history, laws, prophecies, and religious poetry of the Jewish people before the coming of Christ. This compilation of ancient scriptures documents the world's creation, the Hebrew people's history and laws, and their covenant relationship with God. The OT was primarily written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
NT (New Testament) - The New Testament is the second section of the Christian Bible, comprising writings that recount the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the early Christian (Catholic) Church. The NT was primarily written in Koine Greek with some small parts in Aramaic. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew.
TL;DR Summary
Once the major differences between the LXX, MT and KJV were examined in Part 1, I got curious about how this compares to the JST (Joesph Smith Translation of the Bible.) My curiosity stems from Joseph Smith’s assertion that his Translation was to “restore” the bible to its original, uncorrupted form by correcting errors and omissions he saw as the result of centuries of faulty transmission and deliberate editing. JS believed, like most Protestants at that time, that the Bible had been altered—whether through lost passages in the Masoretic Text or doctrinal edits by the Protestant reformers. JS’s JST was meant to recover the “plain and precious” truths of scripture they assumed were lost/removed due to corruption over the centuries. I was curious about this because this belief is still present in the LDS churchand, in some discussions about restoration, figured prominently. The result is the attitude and belief that the Bible is the Word of God only so far as it has been translated correctly; an attitude that results in LDS religion education for laity focusing more on unique Mormon scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, D&C, and POGP than the Bible.
I proceed to use the AI Chat-GTP model to analyze Joseph Smith’s translation and highlight textual variants, focusing on how the JST altered the text. The purpose is to explore these discrepancies and what changes were made, especially in relation to the omitted and altered passages, and to see if any lost or corrupted textual variants between the KVJ, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls are actually “restored” by JS.
I then critique Joseph Smith’s JST translation, arguing that over 99% of changes are theological expansions rather than textual restorations and that his changes are unsupported by ancient manuscripts.
Finally, I present a modern LDS apologetic take on approaching the JST, and criticize their attempt to reframe the subject matter and talk about the how/why they are doing that so that readers who watch it will be aware of the games they play.
For the sake of continuity and to help you maintain some flow of the conversation, I’m reproducing a relevant part from Part 1 that leads into the JDST discussion. See below.
Question to the AI: Did those compiling the masoretic text remove parts of it that christians viewed as supporting the christian claim? If so, which parts?
Response: Yes, there is evidence that the compilers of the Masoretic Text (MT) modified certain passages that early Christians used to support their claims about Jesus as the Messiah. This textual standardization, which took place between the 1st and 10th centuries AD, likely reflected Jewish efforts to solidify a version of the Hebrew Bible that was distinct from the one used by Christians, who often relied on the Septuagint (LXX).
Key Passages Where the Masoretic Text Differs
Psalm 22:16
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “They pierced my hands and my feet” (ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας μου).
Masoretic Text: “Like a lion are my hands and my feet” (כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי).
Significance: The phrase “they pierced” (karu, כָּרוּ) is present in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, which supports Christian interpretation as a prophecy of crucifixion. The Masoretic scribes changed it to “like a lion” (ka’ari, כָּאֲרִי), which makes little grammatical sense but removes the messianic implication.
Isaiah 7:14
Septuagint (LXX): “Behold, a virgin (παρθένος) shall conceive and bear a son…”
Masoretic Text: “Behold, a young woman (עַלְמָה, almah) shall conceive…”
Significance: The Greek word parthenos specifically means “virgin,” while almah can mean “young woman” but often implies virginity. The LXX translation was widely cited by Christians (e.g., Matthew 1:23) to support the virgin birth of Christ, leading some scholars to believe that later Jewish scribes modified the Hebrew to weaken the Christian interpretation.
Genesis 5 & the Genealogies
Septuagint & Samaritan Torah: The ages of the patriarchs before the Flood add up to a longer chronology (by about 1,500 years).
Masoretic Text: The ages were reduced.
Significance: Some scholars suggest that the shorter MT chronology was adopted to undermine calculations that early Christians used to link biblical events to Jesus.
Zechariah 12:10
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “…they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him…”
Masoretic Text: “…they will look upon the one whom they have pierced…”
Significance: The LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that God Himself is pierced, a potential reference to the suffering of Christ. The MT removes the reference to “Me” (God) and makes it more ambiguous.
Deuteronomy 32:43
Septuagint & Dead Sea Scrolls: “Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him…”
Masoretic Text: “Rejoice, O nations, with His people…”
Significance: The missing reference to angels worshiping God is present in the Septuagint and quoted in Hebrews 1:6, implying that Jesus is the divine figure being worshiped.
(Another Aside by Lee) Context regarding why these Changes were Made
Post-Temple Judaism (after 70 AD) – After the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbinic Judaism sought to create a unified Hebrew text that was distinct from the Christian-used Septuagint.
Theological Motivation – The early Christian movement heavily relied on the Septuagint to argue that Jesus was the Messiah. In response, Jewish scribes may have subtly altered certain passages to reduce Christological interpretations.
Scribal Standardization – The Masoretic scribes aimed to create a singular, authoritative text, which sometimes meant modifying older readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
Conclusion
While the Masoretic Text remains the standard Hebrew Bible in Judaism, it appears to reflect theological and editorial choices made in reaction to Christianity. The older textual traditions—such as the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls—suggest that some Messianic prophecies were clearer in earlier versions but were later adjusted in the Masoretic tradition.
AI-Fact-Checking results for this response
Assessment
This is an Accurate listing of known textual variants. It is true that these differences exist.
The claim that these passages were changed specifically to counter Christian usage is a common hypothesis but is not universally accepted as the sole reason.
No direct factual error—just note that the motivation is debated, though these are legitimate variants.
When I got to this part of the discussion I got curious about the JST, because Joseph Smith, a 19th century self-ascribed prophet, seer and revelator, and founder of the LDS church, purportedly had the divine gift of translation of ancient texts. He claimed that the Bible was the word of God “only in-so-far as it was translated correctly,” so he, with his prophetic powers, did his own “translation” of the bible. Surely, he worked these issues out and corrected the text for LDS usage, right?
Question to the AI: Were any of these textual differences corrected or restored by Joseph Smith when he translated the Bible?
Note that b/c this is all within one chat session with the AI, when I say “any of these textual differences” the AI will know to refer to all of the variants, not only those presented in the section above (although that will likely be where it starts,) but also all of those detailed in part 1 of this series.
Response:Joseph Smith’s “Inspired Version” (JST) attempted to restore or modify some biblical passages, but his revisions do not always align with the Septuagint (LXX) or Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead, many of his changes reflect [personal] theological reinterpretations rather than textual restoration. Below are some key examples where the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) aligns or diverges from the older textual traditions.
1. Psalm 22:16 – “They Pierced My Hands and My Feet”
Masoretic Text (MT): “Like a lion are my hands and my feet.”
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): “They pierced my hands and my feet.”
JST:No change – Joseph Smith did not restore this passage to match the LXX or DSS.
Analysis:
Since this verse was often cited as a prophecy of the crucifixion, Joseph Smith’s lack of correction suggests he may not have been aware of the textual issue or did not see a need for revision.
2. Isaiah 7:14 – “Virgin” vs. “Young Woman”
Masoretic Text (MT): “Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive.”
Septuagint (LXX): “Behold, a virgin (parthenos) shall conceive.”
JST:No change – Retained the KJV reading, which follows the LXX (“virgin”).
Analysis:
The KJV already followed the LXX’s reading of “virgin,” which aligns with Matthew 1:23. Joseph Smith did not alter this.
3. Zechariah 12:10 – “They Will Look Upon Me Whom They Have Pierced”
Masoretic Text (MT): “They will look upon the one whom they have pierced.”
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “They will look upon Me, whom they have pierced.”
JST:No change – Retains the KJV reading, which is closer to the MT.
AI Analysis:
This passage, which Christians interpret as a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion, was not corrected in the JST to reflect the older readings.
4. Genesis 5 & Chronology of the Patriarchs
Septuagint (LXX): Lists longer lifespans and a different timeline.
Masoretic Text (MT): Shortened some lifespans.
JST:No significant changes to lifespans.
Analysis:
Joseph Smith did not attempt to realign the genealogies with the Septuagint or Samaritan Torah.
5. Deuteronomy 32:43 – “Let All the Angels of God Worship Him”
Masoretic Text (MT): “Rejoice, O nations, with His people.”
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
JST:No change – Retains the KJV reading which follows the MT.
Analysis:
This passage is quoted in Hebrews 1:6, but the angelic worship reference is missing from the MT and Joseph Smith did not restore it.
Ok, that was disappointing. Surely there has to be more here. Since JS was very focused on Christ, as were most people during the second great awakening, surely he addressed messianic messages that the Hebrew scribes had removed. Certainly, a Prophet of God who has allegedly spoken to Christ face to face and tasked with restoring his true Gospel message would find and restore these texts. Right? Or is this not a reasonable expectation to have?
Question to the AI: Did Joseph Smith Restore Any Messianic Passages?
Response from the AI: Joseph Smith made many changes to the Old Testament, but they do not generally correspond with textual corrections found in the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, or other ancient manuscripts. Instead, his changes often reflect:
Theological elaboration (e.g., expanding on God’s role in history).
Clarifications aligning with LDS doctrine.
Restoring missing narratives, according to his claims of revelation.
Notable Changes in the JST Related to Christ
1. Genesis 50:24-38 (JST Addition)
JST adds a prophecy of Joseph about a future prophet like Moses who will bring forth new scripture (interpreted by Mormons as a prophecy of Joseph Smith himself.) [<author’s sarcasm> adding a prophecy about yourself to the Bible? How convenient! Obviously a man of great humility, he must have been a saint! </sarcasm>)]
This addition has no manuscript support from [any ancient source], LXX, DSS, or MT.
Expands greatly on Melchizedek’s role as a high priest, adding teachings about faith and priesthood.
3. Isaiah 29:10-26 (JST)
Adds phrases about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, a passage which Mormons link to their restoration narrative.
Conclusion
Joseph Smith did not systematically restore the text to match the older readings found in the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, or Samaritan Pentateuch. His changes were not textual restorations [of lost plain and precious things] but theological expansions influenced by his prophetic claims. While he made many revisions to the Bible, they often do not reflect the textual evidence from ancient manuscripts.
Would you like a list of JST changes that do have some manuscript support, or do you want to focus on how the LDS view these changes?
AI Fact Checking result:
Response
Joseph Smith did not restore “Christian-favored” textual variants (e.g., Psalm 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, Deuteronomy 32:43). Most of his JST changes do not match any known ancient Hebrew or Greek manuscript tradition; rather, they reflect [his own] theological or doctrinal expansions.
Assessment:
Essentially correct. When we check the JST, we see that the famous variants (like Psalm 22:16, “pierced”) remain unaltered from the KJV.
No correction needed—the [original output] is consistent with a careful comparison of the JST to known manuscripts.
My thoughts at this point
If I’m reading this correctly, the JST doesn’t actually correct or restore any erroneous translations or missing texts in the protestant KJV Bible. Well, that’s disappointing! Actually, I’m not surprised. I already didn’t believe he was a real prophet, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and risk being proven wrong.
Instead, all the JST does is change parts of the bible to make them appear to support his theological innovations and prophetic claims, even inserting a prophecy about himself! You might think that isn’t a big deal, but I think it is because it speaks volumes about his character.
I have come to understand in Orthodoxy, that holy men, saints and monks - some of whom have indeed had the gift of Prophecy, are incredibly humble people. Some have suffered slander and many false accusations that in their humility they didn’t even try to defend themselves and instead suffered the consequences in silence. My understanding is that their foundation for holiness and Grace is based in their humility. This move by Joseph Smith (JS) does not strike me as humble. It strikes me as prideful, egotistical and even arrogant. Did he not think that that would raise eyebrows or increase hostility towards him? (maybe this is partly where some of the hostility against him Came from.) I’m not sure. Maybe he felt safe in his little community of people who hung on his every word as if it was from God. But it’s so bold-faced1 that it makes me feel quite irritated, which prompted the following snakiness.
<sarcasm> So, you make up your own religion and then creatively edit the established historical sacred texts so that they agree with your made-up nonsense, and then add a prophecy about yourself to make it seem like what you are doing was foreordained by God! Surely, dear brother Joseph Smith wouldn’t do that! He was a good, righteous man! Wasn’t he? (After all, he deserves our veneration, honor, and praise, like the LDS hymn says, Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus appointed that prophet and seer!) </sarcasm>
The LDS view is that Joseph Smith was a righteous, honest and earnest man fighting against the forces of evil to restore the “one true church.” Unsurprisingly, the view of him by external (non-Mormon) researchers (and most former Mormons) is that he was at most a pious fraud (that’s being generous) known for misleading people for his benefit. This seems to align with the latter perspective more than the former. If fact, I think if you are honest with yourself and you look at the life and many actions of Joseph Smith (such as his affair with fanny alger, polygamy, the “translation” of the Book of Mormon, the evolving story of the first vision, and his other supposed translation efforts, i.e. Book of Abraham) you will find a consistent pattern of behavior. That is something that early opponents of Joseph Smith pointed out, that he and his family were not of good character. LDS sweep that away and ignore it as “anti-Mormon” hatred, jealousy, or envy, but these were people who knew the Smiths personally; many were their neighbors2, but Its easy to ignore what other say when you vilify them. What would they have to gain by speaking out against him? Seems to me that perhaps they were trying to warn people about what they already knew, that the Smiths were not trustworthy or of good character.
But, it’s the Lenten season and I should not proceed with negativity in my heart. I do want to try to be as fair as possible; heck, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe LDS leaders are correct, and the devil has led me astray. If so, the truth should bear out, right? God doesn’t work by deception; he’s the God of truth, not the master of lies, so let’s try to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt.
Surely, dear Brother Joseph “restored” at least some passages and got some things right. Let’s ask and find out what he did get right. I should note that this is where AI Fact Checking model did the most corrections to the original output of the 4-o model. My guess is 4-o was repeating LDS apologist information it was trained on and the o3 models ability to perform advanced reasoning, used it’s advanced skills to go and check this information itself.
Question to the AI: Please provide a list of JST changes that do have manuscript support
Joseph Smith’s Joseph Smith Translation (JST) contains many changes, but most are theological expansions rather than restorations of lost texts. However, a few JST changes do have some manuscript support, particularly from the Septuagint (LXX), Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), or other early sources. Below is a list of notable JST alterations that align with ancient textual variants.
1. Genesis 4:6-7 – Cain’s Offering
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”
JST (Moses 5:22-23, Pearl of Great Price): Adds a reference to Satan’s role in Cain’s rebellion.
Dead Sea Scrolls (4QGenb) & Septuagint: Indicate a longer, more complex dialogue between God and Cain, closer to the JST expansion.
Manuscript Support?
Partial Support – The DSS version of Genesis 4:6-7 has additional wording beyond the MT, though not identical to the JST.
Claim (made by GTP-4o): Partial support in DSS 4QGenb for a longer dialogue.
Reality: Some DSS fragments do show minor expansions in the Cain/Abel story (e.g., Cain speaking to Abel before killing him). However, the JST’s explicit mention of Satan tempting Cain is not found in any extant Hebrew fragment.
Conclusion:“Partial support” is generous; the JST’s changes are not documented in ancient manuscripts.
2. Genesis 14:17-20 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: Mentions Melchizedek blessing Abraham, but does not elaborate on his role.
JST (Genesis 14:25-40): Expands Melchizedek’s role, stating he preached repentance, held the priesthood, and performed miracles.
Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek, 11Q13): Describes Melchizedek as a divine, priestly figure linked to eschatological salvation, which [thematically] aligns with JST’s expansion of his importance.
Manuscript Support? Strong Support – The DSS 11QMelchizedek suggests Melchizedek was viewed as more than a king-priest, similar to JST’s expansion.
AI-Fact-Checking Assessment:
Claim: “Strong support” from 11QMelchizedek (a Dead Sea Scroll).
Reality: 11QMelchizedek is a midrashic (commentary-type text,) not a direct biblical manuscript. While it shows Melchizedek as an exalted/eschatological figure—somewhat reminiscent of the JST’s emphasis—the JST expansions in Genesis 14 do not match any direct ancient “biblical” text. It’s more of a thematic parallel than a verbatim restoration.
AI-Fact-Check Conclusion: There is some conceptual overlap (Melchizedek as a significant priestly figure), but calling it “strong manuscript support” overstates the case.
3. Exodus 34:1-2 – The Two Sets of Tablets (original output)
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.”
JST (Exodus 34:1-2): Adds a clarification that the second set of tablets contained a lesser law, not the full original law.
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) & Targums: Indicate that the second set of tablets was altered, supporting JST’s claim that something was missing from the replacement.
Manuscript Support? Moderate Support – While no ancient manuscript states exactly what was changed, Jewish traditions support the idea that the second tablets were different from the first.
AI-Fact-Check Assessment regarding Exodus 34:1–2 (Two Sets of Tablets)
Claim: “Moderate support” from Samaritan Pentateuch/Targums for the second set of tablets being different.
Reality: Ancient Jewish tradition and some Targums do suggest differences in the second set, but the JST’s exact expansions are not textually confirmed by any ancient Hebrew manuscripts.
Conclusion: Again, more of a thematic alignment than a direct textual match.
4. Deuteronomy 32:8 – Sons of God vs. Children of Israel
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance… he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
JST: Changes “children of Israel” to “sons of God.”
Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutj) & Septuagint: Read “according to the number of the sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים), rather than “children of Israel.”
Manuscript Support? Strong Support – The DSS and LXX confirm that the original Hebrew likely said “sons of God”, which aligns with JST.
Claim: The JST supposedly changes “children of Israel” to “sons of God,” matching the older DSS/LXX reading.
Reality: In all published accounts, the JST for Deuteronomy 32:8 does not actually change this verse to “sons of God.” It remains essentially the same as the KJV. [Lee: this makes me think that o3 went and double checked the claims itself.]
Conclusion: The claim that the JST corrected this verse to align with DSS/LXX is incorrect. This is likely the biggest factual slip the list.
5. Isaiah 29:10-14 – “A Book That Is Sealed”
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered… The vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed.”
JST: Expands this passage to apply directly to the Restoration, linking it to a “sealed book” given to a learned man and an unlearned man.
Septuagint (LXX) & Dead Sea Scrolls: Have slightly different wording but support the theme of blindness and a sealed book, though not in the JST’s exact way.
Manuscript Support? Partial Support – The LXX has alternative readings that emphasize blindness and sealed prophecy, which has thematic parallels with JST’s interpretation.
AI-Fact-Check Assessment regardingIsaiah 29:10-14 – “A Book That Is Sealed”
The JST expansion of Isaiah 29:10-14—linking the “sealed book” explicitly to later restoration events—finds only thematic support in ancient manuscripts, as the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls echo the imagery of concealed divine revelation but do not include the explicit restorative language found in the JST.
6. Jeremiah 31:31-33 – The New Covenant
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel… I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”
JST: • Expands the passage to emphasize a latter-day restoration and the covenant being broken due to apostasy.
Jeremiah 31:31
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I judged them, saith the Lord.”
Jeremiah 31:32
“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Jeremiah 31:33
“And it shall come to pass, that every one that hath not known me shall know me; from the least of them unto the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Dead Sea Scrolls (4QJera): Includes additional phrases about covenant renewal, similar to JST’s expansion.
Manuscript Support? Moderate Support – The DSS suggests variations in Jeremiah’s prophecy, but JST adds a theological interpretation rather than a textual correction.
AI-Fact-Check Assessment for Jeremiah 31:31-33 – The New Covenant
The JST expansion of Jeremiah 31:31–33 intensifies the theme of a renewed, internalized covenant that replaces the old, broken one, yet while some Dead Sea Scroll fragments hint at a richer covenantal language, most scholars consider this expansion a theological reinterpretation rather than a direct restoration of an ancient manuscript variant.
7. Matthew 4:1-2 – Who Led Jesus Into the Wilderness?
Masoretic Text (MT) & KJV: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”
JST: Changes it to “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be with God.”
Codex Sinaiticus (Ancient Greek Manuscript, 4th Century): Suggests an alternate reading that de-emphasizes Satan’s role in leading Christ into temptation.
Manuscript Support? Weak but Possible Support – Some early Greek manuscripts omit Satan’s involvement, though most do not.
AI-Fact-Check Conclusion regarding Matthew 4:1–2
Claim: Some early Greek manuscripts omit or vary the “to be tempted by the devil” phrase, giving “weak but possible support” to the JST reading “to be with God.”
Reality: There is no known manuscript that actually says “to be with God.” Some very minor variants shorten the temptation narrative, but the JST’s wording is unique.
Conclusion: The claim of direct manuscript support is overstated.
Chat-GTP AI Conclusion
While Joseph Smith’s JST occasionally resemblesthemes found in older texts or Jewish tradition, it rarely (if ever) precisely matches any ancient biblical manuscript variant. The biggest factual error from the original GTP-4o output was stating that the JST changed Deuteronomy 32:8 to “sons of God” in line with the DSS/LXX—this did not happen in the actual JST text.
This conclusion prompted my last and final question to the AI.
Question to the AI: Given the examples you provided, what would you say the accuracy is, in terms of a percentage, of changes Joseph Smith made in his restoration of the biblical text through his translation efforts?
Response: To estimate the accuracy of Joseph Smith’s changes in his Joseph Smith Translation (JST) compared to ancient manuscript evidence, we need to analyze the total number of changes he made and how many of them align with known textual variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Septuagint (LXX), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and other early manuscripts.
Scope of Joseph Smith’s Changes
Joseph Smith made approximately 3,410 changes in his JST of the Bible.
Changes fall into these broad categories:
Theological Expansions (Majority) – Additions or reinterpretations based on LDS theology.
Doctrinal Clarifications – Adjustments to better fit Restorationist teachings.
Textual Corrections – Aligning with earlier manuscript evidence.
Grammatical Updates – Improving archaic phrasing in the KJV.
2. How Many of His Changes Have Manuscript Support?
From the examples provided earlier, we see:
Strong manuscript support for 2-3 changes (Deuteronomy 32:8, Genesis 14:17-20, and Psalm 22:16 possibly).
Moderate manuscript support for 2-3 changes (Jeremiah 31:31-33, Isaiah 29:10-14, Exodus 34:1-2).
Partial or weak support for 2-3 changes (Matthew 4:1-2, Zechariah 12:10, Genesis 4:6-7).
No manuscript support for the vast majority (over 95%) of his changes.
3. Estimated Accuracy Percentage
If only about 6-9 of the 3,410 changes have manuscript support, that’s an accuracy rate of:
(6 to 9) ÷ 3,410 = 0.18% to 0.26% accuracy
(Lee) Even if we assume more of his changes have some partial support, and allow those and more based on thematic parallels instead of textual accuracy, we might be generous in estimating accuracy rates in single digits, as almost no changes align with any ancient textual tradition.
4. Conclusion: Is JST a Restoration?
Joseph Smith’s JST is not a textual restoration in the sense of recovering the original biblical text as found in ancient manuscripts.
Over 99% of his changes do not match any known early textual tradition.
His changes reflect theological revisions rather than evidence-based textual corrections.
Final Verdict
Accuracy of JST as a textual restoration:<1%
Accuracy of JST as a theological reinterpretation:100% (it fully reflects LDS theology)
3o-Fact-Check regarding this response:
Claim: Joseph Smith made ~3,400 changes; maybe only 6–9 changes have some textual basis, for a rate under 1%.
3o-Fact Check Assessment:
The raw numbers (~3,400 total changes) are often cited by scholars and appear roughly correct.
As shown above, many of the JST changes with alleged manuscript support turn out to be parallels in theme or commentary (e.g., Melchizedek in 11QMelch) rather than actual textual restorations.
So the percentage of true “textual restorations” is arguably even lower than 1%—since some claimed matches (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8) do not actually exist in the JST.
3o-Fact-Check Conclusion:
The overall thrust—namely, that the JST does not align with known ancient textual variants in most places—is correct.
If anything, the actual number of verifiable matches might be close to zero when one excludes purely thematic overlaps.
After I had the GTP o3-mini-high model fact check the 4-o model results and conclusions I asked it to rerun the accuracy calculations based on its fact-checking.
Question to the AI: Based on your review of the previous information, please rerun the accuracy calculations taking into account your findings
Result:
Below is a concise recalculation based on the updated findings that none of the initially cited JST “textual restorations” clearly match known ancient manuscripts in a straightforward, line-by-line manner. Some have thematic parallels (e.g., Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek), but not direct textual alignment.
Total Changes vs. Verified Alignments
1. Total JST Changes
Often estimated at around 3,400 revisions to the King James text.
2. Changes with Confirmed Textual Backing
After removing claims that turned out to be incorrect (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8 was not changed to “sons of God” in the JST) or only thematically similar (e.g., Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek), we end up with 0 or, at best, 1–2 changes that have any arguable (though very weak) manuscript support.
Percentage Calculation
If 0 changes are truly backed by ancient textual variants, that yields: 0/3,400 = 0.00%
If we try to be as generous as possible and say there might be 1 or 2 partial alignments (thematic, not exact textual), that yields:
Either way, the fraction of JST changes that have clear, verifiable support from extant ancient manuscripts is effectively 0% (or, at most, under 0.1% if we count very loose thematic parallels).
Conclusion
• Updated Accuracy Percentage:0% to (at most) ~0.06%
• Reasoning: Almost all JST revisions are unique theological expansions rather than demonstrable restorations of ancient textual readings. Even the few changes once believed to have direct manuscript support do not align as closely as initially claimed.
Okay, it’s not looking good for poor old Brother Joseph, knowing that LDS apologists will object and call what I’ve done here a “tight” comparison and “unfair” because, in their minds, that’s not how Prophets translate texts. LDS apologists will argue that a Prophet doesn’t translate or restore text specifically, but only “translates” the “spirit” of the text i.e. perform “Loose” translations that look only for correlations based on thematic parallels. So, I asked ChatGPT to rerun the analysis again, considering thematic parallels as accurate changes. Now, this might actually be beyond the AI’s ability to properly perform or compute, but let’s give it a shot.
The other objection I’m sure I’ll receive from pro LDS readers or apologists is that I’m only comparing English translations, and due to my inability to read/translate Koine Greek or Hebrew, I cannot check and see if any of the JST “translations” are possible or feasible translations of the original underlying source texts languages. This may be a fair criticism, but I think it’s a fair criticism based only on a desire to move the goalposts from an academic analysis to a “loose” thematic correlation (which itself is not a “fair” request).
Question to the AI: Rerun the analysis to include thematic parallels as accurate translations for Joseph Smith’s JST.
Result: When we evaluate the JST by only counting precise, textual restorations to ancient manuscripts, almost none of the changes match, resulting in an “accuracy” of effectively 0%. However, if we broaden our criteria to include thematic parallels—where a JST change reflects a similar idea, narrative, or theological motif found in earlier traditions (such as the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, or early Jewish writings)—the picture becomes more nuanced.
Key Points When Including Thematic Parallels
1. Broader Definition of “Accuracy”:
Textual vs. Thematic:
Textual accuracy means a direct restoration of wording found in earlier manuscripts.
Thematic accuracy means that a change in the JST aligns with a broader idea or theological concept that is present in ancient sources, even if the exact words are not recovered.
2. Examples of Thematic Parallels:
Melchizedek’s Role:
The JST expands on Melchizedek’s priestly role in a way that echoes broader Jewish traditions where Melchizedek is seen as a prefiguring, exalted priestly figure. Although there isn’t a direct, word-for-word match, the theme is present in texts like those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Covenant Renewal Themes:
JST expansions in passages like Jeremiah 31 reflect a renewed covenant that is thematically similar to ideas in some ancient texts—even though the exact wording isn’t restored.
3. Impact on “Accuracy” Percentage:
With textual matching, almost 0% of the 3,400 changes have direct manuscript support.
When including thematic parallels, a modest number of JST changes (perhaps on the order of 2–5% of the changes) can be argued to resonate with ideas and motifs from ancient traditions.
Even with this broader view, the vast majority of JST modifications remain unique to Joseph Smith’s theological reinterpretation and do not find clear antecedents in early texts.
AI’s Conclusion
Without Thematic Parallels:
The direct textual “accuracy” of the JST is effectively 0%.
With Thematic Parallels:
One might argue that between 2–5% of the JST changes share some thematic similarities with earlier traditions. However, this modest figure represents only a small fraction of the total changes, with most of the JST being innovative reinterpretations rather than restorations.
In short, broadening our analysis to include thematic parallels does slightly raise the percentage of JST changes that might possibly align with earlier traditions, but overall, the vast bulk of the JST changes remains uniquely reflective of Joseph Smith’s own doctrinal perspectives. Before TBM’s and apologists rejoice and declare victory, however, I’d remind that that we’re are being very generous and the changes are still single digits percentages. That’s a stark contrast to what you should be able to expect from a Prophet would proclaims to translate by the gift and power of God. Either God’s power isn’t that great, or Joseph’s gift of translation is a farce, because with such wide goal posts for what “translation” means he should be able to get at least the same number right, just by accident.
I admit, with feigned disappointment, that I expected something better out of a Prophet Seer and Revelator who is allegedly acting with the power and authority of the creator of the universe. If the former were true, I would expect that his accuracy rate would have been much much better.
Latterday-Saint to Orthodox is a reader-supported publication. Since this is an extremely niche community, the number of support members is small. If you find my work helpful, and want it to continue, please consider becoming a paid subscriber
Thoughts at this point; and it ain’t pretty
If you are easily offended by criticism of the LDS church and its faith claims I would ask you to stop reading here. Below I summarize the above exercise and then wade into the LDS apologetic approaches to the subject matter and I don’t pull any punches in how I feel about the conclusions (scathing might come close.) Consider yourself warned, I will not be held responsible for any tears, feelings of being offended, or resulting fallout. If you are sensitive or have troubles separating your thoughts from your emotions, this is your “bail out now” clue.
Given that the realistic accuracy rate of JS’s JST translation is effectively 0-0.6% or if we want to be incredibly generous and include thematic parallels vs actually restored textual variants 2-5%. It would seem to me that the pious fraud view of JS as a prophet is the one most probable to be true. When I add into that the consideration that his Book of Abraham "translation" is 100% nonsense, according to modern professional egyptologists, it leads me to the conclusion that as a "prophet seer and revelator" his batting average is absolutely atrocious.
The only reasonable explanation for this seems (to me) to be that he just made it all up. He was a con-artist; I will admit that he wasasincere con-artist. He certainly believed his own propaganda. Out of 3,410 changes he made in the JST he should be expected to at least get some textual corrections right, even if by accident. Let’s remember that at one point he had a jewish tutor helping him learn Hebrew, and it makes sense to me that in the time and place he lived, he would have had access to biblical commentaries (and he did, he plagiarized one to create his JST. Read below.) If you read the link I put above regarding the Book of Abraham translation you will see the LDS church using the exact same techniques that the apologists use below, in their gospel topics essay where they try to justify the BOA. Once you can see this you will start to see a pattern ermerging.
The Apologetic Approach
If you don’t like or agree with my conclusions, that’s ok. I’m not a translator, I don’t have an doctorate in textual analysis, and we are relying on the computer to make these deductions based on what it was trained on, what it can find on the internet, and can deduce (with it’s artificial reasoning abilities.) SO if you want to say, “Hey Lee, go Fuck yourself, you twat” you are well within your rights to do so, and the only reaction you’ll get from me is eye-rolling. So where does a TBM (true believing mormon) go to turn this frown upside down? Well, the apologists of course! That’s what I used to do.
Coincidentally, the Stick of Joseph, an LDS apologetics YouTube channel (that has done good stuff in the past) recently released a video on the topic of the JST (Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible) 6 days ago. The title of the video thumbnail is “Did Joseph Smith ‘Fix’ the Bible?” I link to it below.
The thumbnail is clickbait btw, but if you have 90 minutes of your life you don’t care to get back, go ahead and have a look at what they say and see if / how that aligns with the information and approach above and then let me know which information you find to be the most honest, transparent, thoughtful and compelling, the AI or the Apologists? Who provides real data and who does the most hand-waving and redirecting?
Spoiler, out of pure morbid, self flagellating curiosity, and a openness to being proven wrong, I did watch much of the video (not all, but more than half.) I started out curious, was quickly disappointed, then was furiously angry and disgusted. Stick-of-Joseph, I’m really disappointed in you guys, this was Ward Radio level content (and that’s not a compliment.)
If you still want to watch it, then please read below before you watch it so that you can be aware of what’s going on in the video. If you’re not going to watch it, feel free to stop here.
Be aware of the Apologist Shenanigans!
Before you go watch it I want to make you aware that, in my opinion, there are some shenanigans being played on the audience in this video. Within this video discussion, there is a fair amount of intellectual subterfuge before they even talk about the JST (which they never really actually get into, it’s just a lot of handwaving and smoke and mirrors.)
I want to bring this to your awareness because I think it’s an excellent example of how LDS apologetics works3. I also bring it up because this kind of thing pisses me off - a lot. (And when I find something that makes me mad, I have to write about it or else I cannot process it - because stroke brain.) It makes me mad partly because I admittedly used to be so desperate for reasons to believe in the LDS church that I fell prey to this type of manipulation on a regular basis. I was emotionally and spiritually in a very painful and vulnerable place and admitting that carries a degree of shame. Also, it makes me angry because it makes me wonder if my former apologetic heroes (people I looked up to, believed were honest and genuine, and trusted) like Kerry Shirts (who himself left the LDS church and later declared it a fabrication), Brant Gardner, Hugh Nibley, and Daniel C. Peterson engaged in these types of shenanigans. I hope they didn’t, because that would mean that some of my heroes knowingly manipulated me (and others) when I was in a vulnerable state. (Although I remember similar charges being laid against Peterson.) Knowing that or even suspecting that to be true will engender feelings of bitterness, betrayal, manipulation, and anger that I thought I avoided in my exit from the LDS church. (Admittedly, it would be somewhat traumatic. I don’t want to hate the LDS church, but seeing this kind of stuff creates feelings I don’t want to have.)
Who’s the real target audience? Why would people be so ready to believe their distortions?
This type of content seems aimed squarely at people who are in the same place I used to be in with my LDS testimony. They have questions, they suspect they are living in a house of cards and that the emperor has no clothes, which makes them nervous and as a result they are spiritually and emotionally vulnerable, desperately looking for any reason or hope they can find to maintain belief without being torn apart by cognitive dissonance. Why would people act this way? Why be so desparate to believe in something so obviously fraudulent? Because, leaving the LDS church is painful and scary. Many LDS and formerly LDS people have poured significant amounts of time, money and effort into the church. For people who grew up LDS, its the only thing they know, its their whole culture, world view, social circle, family and even professional network. The LDS church defines so much of your life that becoming an outsider means potentially being cut off from family, friends, your social circle, your faith, culture, and way of life. It’s also the lens through which many people view and interpret the world, the cosmos and their place and purpose in it. So leaving the LDS church is truly a terrifying prospect. Such an event can literally bring your entire universe crashing down so many, even if they suspect it is not true, or no longer believe it is true, will pretend they believe and stay physically inside of the church (by continuing to attend and participate,) afraid of telling anyone what they really believe. However, over time, living in that state feels like you are living a lie as you need to hide what you really believe and all your interactions become shallow and two dimensional and you end up lonely and isolated. Sadly this is common enough that we have a name for these people. We call them PIMO’s (physically in, mentally out.) This type of content seems to be aimed squarely at them, and they have my deepest sympathies, they are in a very painful and vulnerable place.
As a friend recently put it, and it was well said:
These type of apologetics exist so the average member who wants to find “the real answers” can discover their works and think “great! There’s some really smart scholars that are on the case, so I don’t have to research any more.” “Plus, what they said makes perfect sense so I can put such-and-such issue aside”
Unfortunately, this is not what is happening here and you cannot just put such and such issue aside. These “really smart” LDS “scholars” are lieing to you and playing games with you because the data speaks for itself and they are trying to defend the indefensible, and they know it. So, unfortunately, you cannot put the issue aside. You will have to do the work and see the analysis through because the apologists are not trustworthy.
The Start of the Shenanigans
As you start the video you’ll note that they start the discussion by reframing what “translation” means. They pretend as if they are going down a list of definitions from the dictionary while putting some definitions up on the screen. The definitions they are showing are not modern, they are from the Websters 1828 dictionary. This seems like a perfectly rational and acceptable thing to do since this would be from Joseph Smith’s time, but this whole preamble is a carefully constructed sleight of hand.
The invoking of older dictionary definitions (like Webster’s 1828) is to illustrate that “translation” originally meant more than a linguistic exercise. Ok, this seems completely rational particularly because some of these definitions align with definitions used in the LDS church today. This is a clever ploy they know that people will readily accept and its the opening gambit in a move to expand the meaning of “translation” so broadly as to be able to make it mean anything they want it to mean. (I should note that at some point, you can make a definition so broad that it now becomes not only meaningless, but it obstructs you ability to think rationally and critically about the entire subject matter. LDS apologists aren’t the only ones that use this tactic, it is a favorite approach used by Social Justice Warriors and Activists of all kinds, to manipulate language to advance their agendas.) This exercise is set up precisely to justify later in the discussion why Joseph Smith’s work, with its many changes, should be seen as a restoration of lost spiritual truths rather than a flawed textual revision; neatly allowing them to sweep the translation failures of JS under the rug and pretend like they don’t exist (which is exactly what they do.)
What they're doing is shifting the goal posts. They're creating their own special definition of "translation" – one that conveniently bypasses all the usual tests of a real translation's quality. This isn't about genuine translation; it's about building a fake framework that lets them arrive at the "faith-affirming" conclusion they want to see while hiding the ugly truth they want to remain hidden. They're changing the rules of translation right in front of you, making it sound reasonable, but it's actually a clever, intellectually dishonest trick to manipulate the viewers.
Imagine you’re playing a game with someone who realizes that they're going to lose if they play by the rules. So, what do they do? They invent a brand new set of rules specifically designed to ensure that they win and then they try to convince you to switch to the “new rules.” This made-up fantasy definition of translation isn't based on how translation is actually understood or judged. It's a rigged system, carefully constructed to look legitimate, so they can sell it to you, but ultimately is just a way to intellectually manipulate the process and guarantee their desired, faith-based conclusion.;
How can you tell when this type of trick is being played on you?
Any time you see a discussion that starts off by redefining common language terms and broadening definitions so as to include things that aren’t normally or shouldn’t be there; or done in such a way that makes objective assessments of outcomes or consequences difficult or impossible, this is a huge red flag that you are being manipulated by someone with an ideology and an agenda. (case in point, “What’s a woman?” sorry- cheap shot, but it’s was the easiest example I could think of. Note, however, that those who bought into the activist redefinition were then completely unable to define the term - something millions of Humans have been able to do for hundreds of thousands of years.)
As they begin, it's clear they're building a rigged game. First, they define "translation" in two ways: "tight" and "loose." They present "tight translation" as a strict word-for-word approach, and then sell that to you as being what real translators (without prophetic gifts) supposedly do (which is incorrect). This is setting up a straw man argument, that will be easy to knock down later because it’s false. Then, they introduce concepts of "loose translation," or "dynamic equivalence," defining it as conveying the "spirit" or general theme. This "loose" approach is incredibly flexible and allows for a lot of wiggle room in interpretation. It’s also apologetically convenient, since Joseph Smith had a Bible on hand and had access to biblical commentaries when "translating."
In fact, BYU Research by Dr. Thomas Wayment, professor of ancient scripture at BYU and Haley Wilson Lemmon …uncovered evidence that Joseph Smith used a readily available Bible commentary…” They point out that “Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America,” and demonstrate “that Clarke is the primary source Smith used.”
The article at the Mormon Stories website continues to be informative.
A quick summary of the historical timeline reveals that Clarke published his summaries in series between 1808 – 1826, before passing away in 1832. Clarke’s well-known work coincides well with Joseph Smith’s letter to W. W. Phelps in July 1832, when he stated “we have finished the translation of the New Testament.”
Wayment and Lemmon continue, “Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.”4
Smith’s reliance upon Clarke’s work seems unavoidable and reignites questions surrounding his use of contemporary source materials to craft his narratives, as well as the way that the modern LDS Church describes this influence as inspired. Wayment and Lemmon stop short of calling Smith’s reliance upon Clarke plagiarization. Instead they introduce terms such as “direct borrowing” while conceding that Smith may have added his own inspired thoughts to Clarke’s – an understandable compromise as their positions at a church-sponsored university encourage delicate word selection.
The mounting evidence places the LDS Church in a difficult position. If it acknowledges that Smith relied heavily upon readily available works and ideas of his day, the concession will no doubt be immediately overlaid onto the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon, with an arguably negative impact on the faithful narrative most members continue to embrace today.
"just speaking in terms of direct engagement, he plagiarized Clarke about thirty times in his New Testament translation and a little less in the Old Testament, but there's about ten - fifteen direct parallels in the Old Testament. There's a lot, and these aren't just like one word here and there - these were whole sentences."
Giving a bigger picture into the research project as a whole, Wilson concludes that the works do not hold up to ancient text or revelation from God: "There's an article on the Book of Mormon that discusses the importance of moving towards the narrative of a nineteenth century text which I think is really important. There's also an article in there on the Book of Abraham and some discussion of maybe when and what went into that similar to our JST article, so I think these narratives are shifting and the church... is playing defense in a lot of ways and i think they just need to start moving into the space. All this narrative of the Book of Mormon is either true or it's not - if the Book of Mormon is true then the church is true. If i'm being completely honest and vulnerable here it's that narrative that led to my own faith crisis - this idea that the Book of Mormon has to be this this ancient perfect text. It was in doing this research that I realized that it wasn't and that lead me to my own crisis."
So we weren’t able to find strong correspondences between the JST changes and ancient texts. The number of aligning changes being very small, but it looks like there is a text where the number of correspondences is quite large, my guess is more than 2-6%.
So much for prophetic gifts being used to restore ancient lost “plain and precious” things. Instead it seems that an existing Methodist commentary was used to insert Methodist understandings (and likely misunderstandings) of the Bible into the JST. To me, if the pursuit of this endeavor was to regain lost truths, this seems like it would only make things worse.
We’ve already established that Joseph Smiths edits to the Bible have no antecedent in ancient manuscripts, instead, however, it seems that his prophetic inspiration is not from God, but instead from a bible commentary (although I suppose it could be worse.) However, the Apologists certainly don’t want you to believe that so here's where they really change the rules: they redefine "translation" to include Joseph Smith's "prophetic role." The LDS website says regarding the JST “He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet.” Now, they can argue that his "translation" is valid simply because he's a prophet fulfilling his prophetic duties – and technical translation accuracy becomes irrelevant, because it can all be inspiration and they can dismiss the issues of translation accuracy without even addressing it directly (and they never do.) This is in line with the LDS position on the JST and other erroneous “translations” of J.S. 5
Here is part of the transcript from the video where they are talking about the other 1828 definitions of Translation.
uh term what are we moving here? Where are we? Are we going from one language to another? Are we moving from one understanding to another? are we moving from one place to another; from one spiritual state to another? so a translated being it's someone Earthly that is becoming Heavenly and you wonder in terms of Joseph's overallmission of translation to include of course that later definition of I'm going from reformed Egyptian to English or I'm going from one language to the next but I'm trying to connect Heaven and Earth, yeah I'm trying to shift people's perspective Heavenward. I mean Brigham Young said one of his favorite things about Joseph Smith was that he could take heaven and bring it down to earth. Right, in other words he's translating things and if I'm studying scripture in the way scripture is intended then I should be the one that's translated. It's as if I am a translated student of scripture because it is bringing me to heaven and helping me see things and understand things and experience things in a way that I never would in my normal language quote unquote my normal day-to-day approach to reality yeah and so to me there's something beautiful about Joseph's translation projects in terms of the effects that those projects are meant to have on readers and if we're limiting ourselves to a scholarly translation Scholars will translate one way prophets will translate another way.
Thus the apologists are reframing the discussion on translation from a process of converting words from one language to another into a larger spiritually and emotionally transformative act. Instead of focusing solely on the technical shift from one language to another, they argue that translation is about bridging two realms — heaven and earth. This reframing seeks to setup the idea that Joseph Smith’s work wasn’t just about linguistic conversion but was intended to change the reader’s perception and elevate them spiritually. (It is also very convenient for them that if you accept what they are doing, the definitions are so broad and subjective that they allow any LDS person watching to proclaim victory for Joseph Smith based on a personal, emotional and subjective perspective, effectively legitimizing confirmation bias and presenting it as proof. To me this is horrific, because it buries one fraud in another.)
Key points in the discussion include:
Metaphorical Transformation: The speaker proposes that a true “translation” involves a shift in understanding or spiritual state, implying that the act itself transforms both the text and the reader.
Heaven-Earth Connection: By invoking Brigham Young’s praise of Joseph Smith’s ability to “take heaven and bring it down to earth,” the speaker underscores a divine quality in the translation process.
Different Translation Modes: They contrast scholarly translations—seen as straightforward, technical renderings—with so called prophetic translations, which are seen as vehicles for divine inspiration and personal transformation.
In essence, LDS apologists here are creating a conceptual framework where the success of a translation is measured not by linguistic precision but by its capacity to inspire a transcendent, transformative experience. (something that is by definition subjective.) This narrative is designed to reinforce the legitimacy of Joseph Smith’s translation work by highlighting its spiritual impact rather than its academic rigor. And within the discussion they setup a straw-man of what academic translation means that they will then proceed to knock down to convince us of their argument, as if to use it to drive home the sale. Any salesperson knows that if you get people saying Yes enough along the way that when you then ask for the big Yes, you’ll be much more likely to get it. They attempt to sell their newly reframed ideas by mischaracterizing the modern translation process and getting the audience to buy in to their fantasy definition as preferable. This is not just an apologetics move, they are following the lead of the LDS church in taking this direction.
As the Mormon Stories Website notes:
[…] the word “translate” has come under increased scrutiny among members of the LDS Church, particularly those who have learned about problems with the translation of the Book of Abraham. The Church today emphasizes that “Joseph’s translation was not carried out in the traditional sense…he used the King James Version of the Bible as his starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost.” 6
The introduction to the JST suggests that “Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.”
In suggesting that Smith’s edits reflect what God intended, the LDS Church presents a claim that is impossible to verify. Perhaps the compelling reason why the Church reiterates the “inspired” nature of Joseph Smith’s work, while regularly distancing itself from any traditional notion of translation concerning any of the works he brought forth, is because abundant contemporary sources of inspiration and 1800s cultural context are increasingly being identified.
How do real translators actually translate?
The mischaracterization of modern translation efforts is the assertion that it’s a literal word-for-word change from one language to another, however, anyone who knows more than one language knows that this would result in translations that are unintelligible, particularly if going from ancient or foreign cultures to a modern familiar one. Modern translators don’t do a “tight” or a“loose” translation. Instead they use their broad understandings of the source and destination languages, cultures and histories to negotiate with the source text, and it’s meaning through their understanding of cultural and historical context and then seek to preserve the intended meaning in the destination language/culture. This is often done by recontextualizing the source into the destination culture though a skillful use of language which includes vocabulary & word choices, grammar and syntax and by substituting particular cultural idioms and figures of speech. Is it a perfect process? No, you can lose things and you can manipulate the outputs through clever uses of language, idioms, etc.
For example, the NIV (new international version) of the Bible commonly used by Protestants has been widely criticized by scholars for engaging in theologically motivated translation, particularly aligning certain Greek terms with Evangelical Protestant interpretations rather than preserving the original meaning or ambiguity. One example of this is the NIV translates the Greek word for Tradition (paradosis - παράδοσις) — “tradition” as “teachings” E.G. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
• Greek: “κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε…”
• Proper translation: “hold fast to the traditions which you were taught…”
• NIV: “hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you…”
The NIV translates paradosis as “teachings” here, which obscures the explicit affirmation of tradition (a term the Reformers often rejected as a corrupt human invention). This aligns more with a Sola Scriptura framework and avoids validating the idea of apostolic oral tradition. Ironically, in verses where Jesus criticizes traditions of men (e.g., Mark 7:8), the NIV keeps the word “traditions”—indicating selective translation.
All, in all, however, on the whole, scholarly translation generally works pretty well and people around the world rely on it every day in books, film, TV, music, dialog, politics, diplomacy, etc.
Closing the Sale with fallacy and misdirection
Then Halvardson (their guest expert apologist) goes on to knock down the straw-man he set up previously, looking to use it to ensure buy-in with this slight of hand as he replaces the rules of the game with a set of rigged rules. He uses the statement “You can be true to the text or true to the audience.” An unaware viewer might think, oh yeah, that makes sense. Best to be true to the audience, however,this is a false dichotomy. It’s not either or, you *can* do both, modern translators (and translation teams) do both. This argument is only impactful if you’ve already swallowed his previous distortions without thinking critically about them first. The point of this is to get you to buy into his reframing, getting you to agree to the new rigged rules of the game, he’s pulling the wool over your eyes, while you are watching! Dirty tricks…..
He uses his false definitions again to contrast the work of translation scholars—who are characterized as aiming for strict, word-for-word accuracy—with prophets, whose translations are meant to capture the spirit or intent of the original. By doing so, they can argue that Joseph Smith’s changes are not mistakes but intentional, inspired modifications designed to “reawaken” the scripture’s true power. So we have now been moved from a position where you can actually objectively evaluate and compare translation outcomes, to a ludicrously broad and subjective definition that resists any comparison because it’s designed specifically to allow those who want to believe it to believe it even in the face of factual evidence that his purported translations are wildly inaccurate.
This is manipulation and deception and is extremely intellectually dishonest. I’m sure the apologists mean well - they are doing their job and trying to defend their faith. Unfortunately, they have the impossible task of trying to defend the indefensible.
The sad thing is that most people watching this will be completely oblivious to the game that is being played on them, unknowingly agreeing to the prepositions they are laying out as they build their fantasy translation framework. If you look at the majority of the video comments, people are buying it, mostly unaware. There are one or two comments calling them out, but there does seem to be a general lack of awareness of the game being played. (And of the comments that existed that were calling them out for their manipulation tactics, when I checked the following day, all of those comments had been removed. Nice to know that they know exactly what they are doing and don’t want anyone else to realize it.)
How do I know the knocking down of the straw-man was a sales tactic used to secure your intellectual buy in? Because they setup the false “straw-man” view of the “academic” method of translation and then poison the well with statements like:
so by going word for word it's going to be it's like what what side do you do damage to(again this binary thinking is a distortion and a false dichotomy.)
yeah I I think there's an old Latin uh phrase that basically says translation is treason
Then they proceed to convince you of the notion that you don’t actually want an actual academic translation because it would be bad. Remember his statement, “you can be true to the text or true to the audience.” Obviously you as a reader are the audience so you definitely want them to be true to you! They have been insinuating from the beginning “Rigorous academic translation Bad! Fuzzy, fake “prophetic” translation that makes you feel safe about Joseph Smith, Good!”
How convenient! Because a rigorous academic translation is exactly where Joseph Smith fails the hardest, so of course they want to sell you this fantasy version, and because they already have the viewer dismissing the notion that they should want a rigorous academic translation, they aren’t going to address the abject failure of JS’s supposed translation efforts. So, instead of looking at Text and attempting to do an analysis of accuracy as we have done above, they set about playing a slight of hand game with you while they rig the rules and convince you of the need to do so. Effectively, their strategy seems to be, if you know you are going to lose the game, create a new game with different rules that allow you to get the outcome you desire. I would expect an honest analysis to start with looking at texts and variants to then perform an analysis and get a result. Instead, they start with the result they want, then engineer the definitions, the meanings and rules of the game to render the very concept of translation so broad and absurd as to be effectively meaningless. Then they can achieve any result they want. And in the interest of saving you time in this rant, they don’t actually get into any detailed discussions of specific textual variants such was presented above in my discussion with Chat-GTP regarding differences between the LXX, KJV and the JST.
In the video, they do in passing mention a few examples—like noting differences in the Sermon on the Mount, certain wording in Matthew 7, passages in section 86 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and even references to Moses 6 and 7—but these are not presented as detailed, analyses. Instead, they use these instances to argue that Joseph Smith’s changes were part of a broader, spiritually inspired reorientation of scripture (instead of a discussion of actual examples of translation it’s now about Joseph Smith reorienting scripture, because…. PROPHET!) In other words, rather than engaging in rigorous textual analysis, they emphasize a conceptual framework where “translation” means transforming the reader’s understanding and restoring what they see as the covenantal, “plain and precious” truths lost over time. (Noting that the purported restored “plan and precious” truths are just in fact Joseph Smith’s personal theological views, none of which are in the original scriptural texts.) So, while there are nods to specific textual differences in the video, the discussion is abstract and rhetorical—more about redefining what a translation should accomplish (in their opinion) than about proving, that Joseph “fixed” any particular biblical errors or restored any lost portions of the text. Which it’s pretty clear that he did not.
They the apologists use their fantasy framework to address criticism from actual real translators. For example, they acknowledge that critics (like those referenced in the CES letter) point out inconsistencies between the JST and other texts (such as the Book of Mormon or traditional biblical versions). However, the speakers use their fantasy redefinition of “translation” to argue that expecting a prophetic translation to conform to modern scholarly standards is missing the point.
This is tantamount to hand-waving to distract you from what’s really happening, and sweeping the inconvenient bits under the rug! Actually, NO IT’S NOT missing the point! IT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!
When you claim to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and can translate texts by the power of God, people expect you to actually be able to do that. Joseph Smith wasn’t shy about proclaiming a prophetic gift of translation and nowhere have I ever seen any evidence that he tried to advance a nuanced understanding of his revelatory gifts. He was happy to let people believe that through his spiritual oracular gifts, he could find buried treasure and then was happy to let them believe he was a prophet with prophetic gifts, including translation. Claiming this and then doing something different that is not expected, or not doing it at all while claiming that you did, is at it’s best deceptive.
<rant>
Let's call this apologetics video what it is: straight-up manipulative bullshit. I’m not directing this at the LDS church at this point, I’m directing this at the apologists. The REALITY is that Professional translators nail accurate, meaningful, and textually faithful translations every day. These apologists are playing us for fools. They start with a bold-faced lie – claiming that scholarly and prophetic "translation" are fundamentally different, hoping to preemptively kill any critical thinking. Then, with breathtaking audacity, they redefine "translation" to magically mean "whatever a prophet says, as long as it’s inline with the purpose of a prophet" rendering objective assessment impossible. The sheer, shameless intellectual convenience of this is insulting to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty. This is deliberate manipulation – a trademark move of LDS apologists. It’s all the more outrageous because if you think about it, this doesn’t happen by accident. It’s takes planning, consideration and forethought; which means that it’s been done on purpose. I left a comment on their video complaining about this type of behavior and you know what they did with it? They removed it. It’s pretty clear they know what they are doing.
It's appalling, and it's tragic how readily earnest, believing Mormons (like my past self) lap up this obvious claptrap largely unaware of the manipulation game being played on them.
How do you spot these type of intellectual fraudsters? One huge clue is that they always start by trying to control the language, twisting definitions and rewriting the rules of evidence. Red flag the size of Texas. (Remember the how just last year, a large segment of humanity after hundreds of thousands of years suddenly became unable to define what a woman is? Those people fell into the same kind of trap by people playing this very same game.)
So, they shamelessly pivot from redefining "translation" to "prophetic mumbo-jumbo," and then have the gall to say you can't even compare the two! Beyond convenient; it's laughably, offensively convenient. Seriously, why even pretend to do an analysis? If their grand conclusion is simply, "Just believe because …’PROPHET!’" then just say so and spare us the BS. The entire point was to see if Joseph Smith “fixed” the Bible, which to answer you need to determine if the JST holds water as a legitimate revision of the Bible. Instead, we get a condescending "just take our word for it, because…. ‘PROPHET!’" Color me insultingly unconvinced. This isn't just bad logic; it's deliberate intellectual fraud, and unfortunately, it's the LDS apologist playbook in a nutshell.
I have an admission. In the CES letter, Jeremy Runnels makes a rather uncharitable characterization of LDS apologists. Not too different from the charge I’m making here. Initially I did not agree with him and thought that he was just being one of those stereotypical angry ex/anti-mormons. I didn’t want to believe it b/c some of those apologists were my heroes. Unfortunately, I have to admit that he was correct in his assessment. I was wrong and I need to change my opinion - because I see this type of thing happening rather frequently.
It's infuriating to watch well-meaning people, desperate for faith, lap up this obvious garbage. Apologists should beware, however, it’s only a matter of time before the winds shift and duh… duh…. duh…. “PROPHET!” stops working. You can only beat people over the head with that for so long before it starts becoming meaningless and loses all impact.
I hate to bring in politics, but is is the same thing that happened in the American culture wars. In 2024 Donald Trump won the election by a landslide. It seems that after a decade of calling people racists and Nazi’s, this tactic lost it’s effect. When you beat the same drum for long enough, people start to tune you out.
Personally, I found it laughable that despite winning WW2, and crushing the NAZI’s, they seemed to still be everywhere. Nazi’s were hiding under every bed, in every closet and behind every door. It became absurd and that’s the way this discussion with apologists is going too. You can only hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes for so long. Sooner or later, enough people will realize that they are being manipulated and censorship of those who point it out will no longer be enough.
By fundamentally corrupting the definition of translation, the apologists rig the entire game for Joseph Smith, declaring victory based on nothing but handwaving and nonsense. Because they know, and they fear you'll realize, that if you judge Joseph Smith's “translations” by actual objective translation standards, he fails spectacularly and undeniably (see the beginning of this article and the linked article on the JST.) And you’ll realize that indeed the emperor has no clothes. And why shouldn't he be judged by real-world objective standards? He’s supposed to be channeling the power of the Almighty God! Shouldn’t divine assistance result in translations that eclipse human ability, not fall laughably short? What are they so desperately trying to conceal with this transparently dishonest wordplay? (I think we all know the answer.)
</rant>
My final message, perhaps, is that instead of listening to Apologists and allowing them to do our thinking for us, maybe we should think critically about these issues and think for ourselves. And you can use the AI to help you do your own research.
Bold-faced is a slang from my father’s country that essentially means you are bold to the point of having no shame, but it can also include pushy, loud, wrong, unreasonable and demanding.
Several early 19th-century neighbors and acquaintances of Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Latter-day Saint movement) and his family left sworn statements and testimonies that cast the Smiths’ character in a harsh light. These firsthand accounts – given by people who knew the Smith family personally – describe them as dishonest, idle, and given to treasure-hunting and superstition. Below are some notable contemporary statements (affidavits, letters, and recollections from the 1820s–1830s) criticizing Joseph Smith and his family’s character, with references to original sources.
Willard Chase, a longtime neighbor who had employed Joseph Smith Jr. and his brother Alvin in 1822, gave a sworn affidavit on December 11, 1833 about his experiences with the Smiths. Chase described the family’s involvement in treasure digging and recounted how Joseph Jr. obtained a “seer stone” while helping dig a well on Chase’s property . According to Chase, Joseph coveted the stone for its supposed magical powers and borrowed it – but then refused to return it, even after promises were made. Chase says Joseph’s brother Hyrum Smith had pledged “his word and honor” to give the stone back, but “he disregarded both his word and honor” and kept it . When Chase later personally asked Joseph Jr. to return the stone, Joseph became angry and swore “I don’t care who in the Devil it belongs to, you shall not have it.” This incident painted Joseph and Hyrum as untrustworthy and deceitful in Chase’s eyes. Chase’s affidavit (published by Howe in 1834) portrays the Smiths as opportunistic treasure-seekers who broke their promises and behaved belligerently when confronted .
Note that I’ve never seen other apologists act this way. I’ve been watching both Orthodox and Roman Catholic apologists on YT, like Jay Dyer and Sam Shamoun at “The Apologists Cut.” Granted my exposure to apologetics of all different faiths is somewhat limited. I have not expended any effort to dig into Jehovah’s Witness apologetics, or Adventists, or Buddhist Apologetics, Muslim apologetics, Jewish Apologetics, etc.
Bruce R. McConkie, said in 1984: "The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth. It contains all that the King James Version does, plus pages of additions and corrections and an occasional deletion. It was made by the spirit of revelation, and the changes and additions are the equivalent of the revealed word in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants... Reference to this section and to the footnotes themselves will give anyone who has spiritual insight a deep appreciation of this revelatory work of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is one of the great evidences of his prophetic call."
