In exploring why this didn’t bother JS I think we need to be open to the possibility that he simply didn’t recognize the discrepancy. Perhaps this specific case can be proven otherwise; but overall, I sometimes wonder whether the shift to valuing ambiguity in interpretation is one part of a larger contemporary (perhaps even “post-modern”) trend. At the same time I do realize that many religious traditions have valued certain kinds of ambiguities (such as paradoxes) for quite some time (which is why I linked over to the previous post). However, I tend to be wary of claims that LDSs have always self-consciously valued ambiguity (perhaps Givens’ “People of Paradox” falls into this category). Instead, I see ambiguity as something that most Mormons have disdained most of the time; and something that some Mormons have found very “fruitful” some of the time. This is all to say that in exploring textual ambiguities within Mormonism, we should be careful about the kind of assumptions we have about the value of ambiguity, and the historical value assigned to the notion.

Even more importantly, the early Christians who had these Gospels were not stupid and clearly knew that there were contradicting differences between the Gospels and accepted them anyways. The problem is when we take these Gospels whose narratives were meant to be understood symbolically (and the early Christians understood this) and then we turn around and try to force literal understandings into them.

An example: The Sermon on the Mount.

Most likely Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount as it is contained in Matthew. Nor did he give the same sermon as it appears on the plain in Luke. Rather both the authors of Matthew and Luke incorporated a collection of aphorisms by Jesus and placed them into a single sermon. Matthew placed this sermon onto a mountain to make a symbolic narrative link to Moses. Luke did not.

Of course this understanding will force a different understanding of this Sermon as it occurs in the Book of Mormon. However, I think this would simply place Joseph Smith among the authors of the Gospels who utilized the sermon in a way to tell an important narrative about Christ and his visit to the Americas.

There is a minor but interesting difference in the two Gospels (both KJV and underlying Greek texts): In Matt the order of the temptations is bread/pinnacle/mountain, but in Luke it is bread/mountain/pinnacle. JST actively revises both accounts across multiple verses, but does not harmonize the order. The logic is that we know that Joseph Smith actively looked at these two accounts (as evidenced by the multiple JST revisions in each account), but left the ambiguity of the ordering intact.

Since the ordering is mutually exclusive, one of the two is not strictly historical (unless Jesus went through the whole triplet of temptations twice, I suppose). But this didn’t bother Joseph Smith.

I’m sure there are more meaningful examples, but at least this one proves my point. Thanks for listening .

PS: Now as to why Luke and Matthew differ on the order of the temptations…well…separate post topic.

I believe that often the truths that the Lord is trying to convey defy human language altogether, and we get approximations at best.

Along those lines, Jacob J, yes, this is a good example, thank you for it. I’m still looking for what I think is out there, an example of JST modifications that are non-identical, which might conclusively demonstrate that JS saw his modifications not in an either/or sense but rather as complementary.

One I’m reminded of is a sermon of Joseph Smith’s quoting the “wise as serpents/harmless as doves” scripture (and its usage in D&C 111) even though the JST changes this to “wise servants” (JST Matt 10:14). It’s as if both are OK. In this case where there is not clear conflict between the two renderings, perhaps my case isn’t made so well, but it does open the door to my thesis that perhaps one of the clues that Scripture writers have left for us is these things that we want to ignore as contradictions. Proving contraries, and all that…

Honestly, I think they’d laugh at us for how we wrest the creation accounts in Genesis, after they were done marvelling about how the sky isn’t actually made of water.

FWIW, my favorite tension is between grace and works as a qualifier for salvation. It’s strong enough that you can’t resolve it only from the scriptures. You have to go to God and ask him how he thinks you’re doing rather than trying to extract a judgment from vague and often conflicting statements. You get a narrow ruling for yourself only, handed down by the only qualified Judge.