I Used to Hate the Inspired Version
Most people who have a basic level of familiarity with Mormonism know that one of the main differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism is that most Christians consider their scriptures to be within a closed canon, although the number of books Christian Bibles contain varies from 66 to as many as 81, depending on the tradition and the way of counting. Mormonism was shipped from the factory with an open canon: the moniker "Mormon" itself comes from the "Book of Mormon", a book of scripture first printed in 1830, and brought forth by Joseph Smith, Jr., who claimed it to be translation of ancient American records.
When I converted to Mormonism in 2009, I was immediately fascinated by new scripture. Even though I was deeply interested in Christianity before, the idea of a closed canon never made sense to me. Hebrews 1:1-2 did not convince me, since if that meant revelations were over with the coming of Jesus, why would any of the New Testament after the Gospels be canon? Revelation 22:18-19 is also utterly unconvincing, as even if we took it at face value, it would mean not adding or taking away from the Book of Revelation; it has obviously nothing to do with adding to a Biblical canon that did not even exist for another few hundred years yet when Revelation was written.
So, I loved the open canon then, as I still do. My whole conversion story - a tale for another time - started with trying to track down a copy of the Book of Mormon, which wasn't easy in my home country. And although it was hard to convince myself of the Book of Mormon's origin story being true, I successfully managed for a few years, and I liked the Book of Mormon. A whole new book of scripture with its own lore, teachings, identity? I was amazed then, and now, seeing the Book of Mormon as a 19th century human writing, I still have lots of love for it despite its issues. Other Mormon scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants also made sense to me. After all, if the continuance of revelation didn't stop with the Bible, why would it stop with the Book of Mormon? Logical.
I had a bigger issue with what is often called the Joseph Smith Translation (within Brighamite circles) or the Inspired Version (within Josephite circles). First of all, in the LDS tradition, the JST/IV is not really used. Despite the inclusion of the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew within the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the footnotes and excerpts found within LDS editions of the Bible since 1979, the text used in these versions is still the King James Version of the Bible. But I thought this was the magnum opus of our prophet, Joseph Smith! Why wouldn't we use it? I later learned that one reason for that might have been the fact that the RLDS Church (today Community of Christ) owned the original manuscripts for the JST/IV. They also used to use it as their preferred Bible text, and although Community of Christ officially moved on to the scholarly acclaimed NRSVue, more conservative RLDS folks such as Restoration Branches or the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints still prefer the JST/IV. (By the way, the LDS Church purchased the JST/IV manuscripts from Community of Christ in 2024.)
However, even later as someone interested in Mormon history and scriptures, the Inspired Version never did it for me. The Book of Mormon? Even if it's not an ancient text, one must admit it is a fascinating piece of (mostly original) writing that speaks directly to many issues Christians faced in the 19th century, and I would argue it is the true magnum opus of Joseph Smith. The Book of Abraham? Yes, obviously not a translation of Egyptian funerary papers, and sadly the point of origin for certain detestable racist doctrines, but also brings a fascinating cosmology to Mormonism that gives it a fantastical identity distinct from all the rest of Christianity, and brings back the idea of a Divine Council similar to that in the original Canaanite religions that Judaism evolved from. And the Inspired Version? As I saw it, nothing but Joseph Smith going through the Bible with a red pencil and crossing out the parts he didn't like and scribbling in other words he liked more. Boring.
While talking to fellow Reform Mormons, the Inspired Version came up multiple times, and I was surprised to see how many people liked it. I started to wonder if others saw something I did not. It is clearly not the restoration of an older textual version of the Bible, and some of the edits are extremely blatant and cheeky, such as the ones where Joseph Smith put a prophecy into Genesis 50 about himself. However, this post is not about the origins of the Inspired Version, it is much more about the intent of it. After identifying this intent, I may have managed to find a little bit of understanding within me for the JST/IV.
Simply put, the intent of the Inspired Version is to edit previously existing scripture to better serve the rhetorical and theological goals of the editor. That's it. This made me think about whether this is as terrible a crime as I previously believed, or whether if it is as unique to Smith as I thought, and undoubtedly, many think. From the perspective of a closed-canonist Christian treating the Bible as the pure word of God, it sure is a terrible crime. However, from the scholarly, text critical perspective, this is something that humans have been doing since forever, and not unique to Joseph Smith at all. If we truly want to call the JST/IV an inspired version of the Bible, one could argue that...
Genesis may be an inspired version of previous Ancient Near Eastern creation and flood myths
Depending on which hypothesis we accept regarding the composition of the Pentateuch, much of it could be inspired versions of previous stories, some still in the Bible (see doublets and triplets)
Genesis 1 could be an inspired version of the much more anthropomorphizing Genesis 2 (or the other way around) by an editor with a different theology
The Binding of Isaac might be an inspired version of a previous story in which Isaac was sacrificed
Parts of Proverbs 22-24 might be inspired versions of the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope
Stories about Esther and Mordecai might be inspired versions of storied about Mesopotamian gods Ishtar and Marduk
And moving on to the New Testament...
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are clearly inspired versions of the Gospel of Mark (and the Q Gospel, if you suppose its existence) with their own agendas, a Jewish Christian-specific one in Matthew's case and a Gentile-specific one in Luke's case
According to the majority of scholars, the Gospel of of the Lord (aka Gospel of Marcion) was an inspired version of the Gospel of Luke with an anti-Judaistic theological agenda, but according to a minority view, Luke might have been an inspired version of Marcion's gospel
The Gospel of John very well could be an inspired version of the synoptics, made by the Johannine community with a clear agenda of showing Jesus as divine and eternal
In these cases, when I say inspired version, it simply just means a rewriting of a previously existing text with an agenda. Of course, in some of the cases, the existence of multiple versions of a story isn't simply the result of someone actually rewriting a text, especially when talking about stories that were originally most likely spreading orally. Yet, even in these cases, a Priestly or Deuteronomist scribe or editor would still have their own agenda that the stories would reflect in the form they would write them down or edit them.
Clearly, Joseph Smith was not the first person to edit previously existing texts with a personal theological agenda, and not the last. And if we think about his cheeky vaticinium ex eventu addition of a prophecy about himself, he was also not alone in doing this:
The pseudoepigraphic Book of Daniel was clearly written after the events that the prophecies contained within it point to - they are meticulously accurate to a certain point in time, which is likely when it was written
Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) is another great example, obviously written during the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE) and long after Proto-Isaiah (8th century BCE) - included in the Book of Mormon as well, within 2 Nephi, which would be impossible if the Book of Mormon were an ancient text!
The Destruction of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels was likely included as a prophecy after the destruction of Jerusalem had already occurred
Many other extra-canonical works like 1 Enoch or 4 Ezra, as well as writings completely unrelated to Abrahamic religions in any way like the Sybilline Oracles, use these after-the-fact prophecies to reinforce their own legitimacy
These conclusions all point to the fact that although the Inspired Version was an extremely daring and to many people, offensive endeavour in an era of many Christians believing the Bible to be the strict and untouchable word of God, in the grand scheme of things, it was business as usual when it comes to Judaism and Christianity, and to scriptures and religious texts in general. As I like to say, Mormon history is a microcosm of Christian history. Learning about how different people, traditions, beliefs, agendas, stories shaped Mormonism shines a good light on Christianity and religion in general. The only difference is that in many cases, Mormonism has traceable evidence of this process, while in the case of more ancient religions, scholars have to come to conclusions based on what survives, with only rarely hitting the jackpot by finding new sources of ancient texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) that help them compare textual variants.
Finally, what do I think of creating new scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, or altering existing ones, like the Inspired Version did? I believe that new scriptural works can be very useful. Although we can still find meaning within ancient writings, most often, scripture speaks to the communities it was written or revealed to. The letters of Paul specifically spoke to the Christian communities in Paul's time. The Book of Mormon was specifically addressing issues within 19th century American Christianity. Different versions of the Doctrine and Covenants all addressed Mormons in real time whenever questions arose. More modern scripture like the Book of the Lavens addresses Mormons today with questions, such as those about queer issues or entheogens, that were not a common part of discourse before. As a Reform Mormon, I do not condone the creation of new scripture while simultaneously being untruthful about its actual origins, whether Joseph Smith, James Strang, or modern authors are doing it. I am glad to belong to a community that moved past these practices and values intellectual honesty. However, this does not mean we need to move past creating scripture as art. Rather, I think it can be very meaningful and useful to create scripture in the here and now, speaking to people today. I choose to close this post with a quote from a Reform Mormon scripture, the Book of Michael:
People have created all scripture and all art. All art is an expression of faith. It is all therefore available for you to explore and use, to view the eternal and gain new knowledge. Choose to designate that which is important to you carefully and do so without limiting yourself from all of the other forms of organization and creation available to you. (Michael 5:28)
