My findings from JST Genesis

Joseph Smith's office at the John Johnson farm, where he performed some of his Biblical translation.

I am fascinated with the history of Biblical translation, and the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is no exception. For those who are unaware, Joseph Smith not only translated the Book of Mormon, but parts of the Bible as well, according to revelation from God. While this translation may appear to be the most audacious of all previous translation projects, I myself believe that Joseph Smith was a modern prophet, and consider his work to be inspired. Therefore, my thoughts will be from this perspective.

In examining the longer portions of the Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis, I have been very interested in examining why certain passages were chosen to be expanded upon. In studying these portions, these are my thoughts so far:

1. Doctrines of Jesus Christ have been in place for thousands of years.

JST Genesis 17:4-7 further indicates that baptism was known to Abram (later Abraham). These same verses, along with verse 11, prove that Abram was taught that children should not be baptized before eight years old (compare these verses to Mormon 8 from the Book of Mormon).

2.  It further clarifies the relationship of the Bible with the Book of Mormon.

Comparing 2 Nephi 3 and JST Genesis 50 is fascinating, as they both contain Joseph of Egypt's prophecies of his descendents. 2 Nephi 3 prophesies of Joseph Smith bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ in modern times. Genesis 50 has that exact same prophecy: even 2 Nephi 3:12 and and JST Genesis 50:31 are the same wording. 

In Genesis 50 however, Joseph speaks of not one, but two of his descendents, the ancient prophet Moses and the modern-day Joseph Smith, a very interesting juxtaposition. Why? Because tradition says that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament (the Torah) as well as establish the Law of Moses. Joseph Smith, also brought forth new scripture as well, the Book of Mormon.

Note the following verses of JST Genesis 50: 27-28, 30:

This is a description of Moses' mission:

 27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.

What exactly is this "work"?

  28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.

So Moses is sent to do a work for God: teach others of their covenants with God, which the law of Moses accomplishes. Compare the previous verses to Joseph Smith's description:

30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;

The Book of Mormon's title page (written by an ancient American prophet named Mormon) shows that the Book of Mormon's primary purpose is to "the convincing...that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God." From the description of Joseph Smith's mission in JST Genesis 50: 30, this principle is more readily apparent. Joseph Smith was not only meant to expound upon God's word in modern times, but to convince us of it, through bringing a second witness of God's word that Moses had already provided: the Book of Mormon. I am grateful that the JST taught me that there was more of a connection between Moses and Joseph Smith than I was aware of.

 Photo by Ken Lund.

Can tolerance be viewed as a lower form of love?

As may be obvious from my last post, I am very interested in acceptance, which leads me to my next musing: tolerance. I define tolerance as acceptance, though not necessarily agreement. Tolerance is a volatile topic; what we choose and not choose to tolerate largely characterizes us. So how do we define the parameters of our tolerance?

To start this conversation, let's consider toleration's (relatively short) history in Western thought. Locke and later Voltaire, incredulous that King Philip would revoke the Edict of Nantes (a treaty that recognized French Calvinism in a dominant Catholic country), advocated for the separation of religion and state. Locke even wrote an anonymous letter in Latin to the King, saying that it was gentle persuasion, not violence or government intervention, that led to genuine conversion. More importantly, one who possessed wrong beliefs did not deserve a broken body. It was Locke, Voltaire, and other Enlightenment thinkers who viewed the extent of one's tolerance as a sort of litmus test of being a "modern" person.

I would argue that we are very much inheritors of much Enlightenment thought. I think that it is little accident that society asks us to be inclusive to others, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Like these previous Enlightenment thinkers, we want to be perceived as a "modern" person, not blinded by a myopic perspective. But in a post-Enlightenment society, I think we need to consider how far does (or should) our toleration extend. Obviously, if we choose to uphold certain principles, we cannot tolerate everything that comes our way. I think that few people wish to tolerate the more nefarious aspects of our society: rape, abuse, etc. But tolerance can be a slippery slope when our principles may conflict with others. How far do we wish to tolerate others' freedom of speech? Religious fundamentalism? Right to bear arms? The right to marry whomever we choose, irrespective of gender?

To what extent we choose to tolerate others' beliefs and principles is a complicated one that we need to figure out for ourselves. The only "hard and fast" rule I can think of is our toleration towards others. I believe it is possible to look at tolerance as a lower form of love. For me, love can be partially defined as acceptance, though not necessarily agreement. We don't have to agree with every belief, principle, or political statement that comes our way. But we can accept others' humanity, which reaffirms our own. We can view others as human beings of great worth, and respect others' choices to define their "tolerance parameters." In choosing to increase our tolerance levels toward others, I would argue that we increase our capacity to love. 


Photo by RaeAllen.