Last week I had two interesting conversations with Latter-Day Saints from work.
A guy in my carpool had seen me reading the Word a few months ago on the way to work, and we spoke a bit about translations, and he encouraged me to read the Joseph Smith Translation. At that time I said "ok," and figured I could and it may open a door to further discussion. I was slow in reading it off the internet and compiling my thoughts (especially differences in John 1), and slow again in reraising the topic. But I did last week. Basically, the JST is just the KJV with some verses changed as Joseph Smith saw fit. And the Church still holds the KJV as “official,” saying that the JST is useful. I asked Dan what they do when there are differences, and he said that the JST often gives you an understanding that makes more sense and is easier to understand. I argued that with John 1, he added many more words and made things less simple and clear; I also discussed the rigor behind the series of manuscripts and translations used by Christians and the unlikelyhood of there being either major errors or a vast conspiracy. I mentioned that I don’t believe Joseph to be a prophet, and he didn’t seem act offended or persecuted. He was willing to admit to the vast difference b/w our views of Jesus Christ (which I illustrated with the JST’s mangling of John 1 – “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. 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.”). I tried, but likely failed, to do justice to the doctrine of the Trinity, and closed by saying how I’d much rather worship a God who is the creator and sovereign over all of everything, instead of an exalted man that I could be, but am simply a generation behind. Still I noticed no defensive armor, but also no fertile soil.
Also, I was working with another guy who is a PhD fluid dynamicist, Dr. P, and I noticed he had a book that he wrote, entitled “The Geography of the Book of Mormon.” I asked him about it, and he said that many years ago he carpooled with a Lutheran who chided him that “We know where Nineveh, and Jerusalem, and other places in the Bible are, but you don’t know where the places in the BoM are!” So Dr. P decided to find out. I asked how he did his research, and he told how he found some similarity of a place name in the BoM and the Mayan name of a real place in Guatemala. And after that, everything fell into place! It didn’t happen all over N. and S. America, just a small place in Guatemala! And the “narrow neck of land” wasn’t the Isthmus of Panama, it was figuratively referring to a bridge over a river. He told me he’d sold a couple thousand in the few years it’s been out, and that it’s slow to catch on with BYU researchers and the like. I didn’t know what to say, but he would have gone on and on about it. I thought later that I should ask him what if it starts to catch on and draws the attention of the First Presidency, and they say “No, this isn’t how it happened. People, don’t waste your time on this geographic research. The real Hill Cumorah was in New York.” Similar words have been spoken, and are believed to be binding. How would he respond?
