2025 Changes to Section/Chapter Headings - D&C and BOM

[Pelado]

Detailed Summary of Approved Adjustments to Select Study Helps of the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon The Church has made some adjustments to section introductions in the Doctrine and Covenants and to two summaries in the Book of Mormon. Many of those in the Doctrine and Covenants were occasioned by findings of the Joseph Smith Papers Project (see josephsmithpapers.org).

https://assets.churchofjesuschrist.o...s_document.pdf

[Northwestcoug]

Even though no one else found this interesting. I did Pelado!

I wonder why they changed the verbiage to section 132, as opposed to repealing it! Ha, I kid. But why did they previously think 'as early as 1831' and now they're not so sure?

[Pelado]

Even though no one else found this interesting. I did Pelado!

I wonder why they changed the verbiage to section 132, as opposed to repealing it! Ha, I kid. But why did they previously think 'as early as 1831' and now they're not so sure?

I'm not sure, but YouTube has been trying to get me to click on a Benjamin Park video that has a thumbnail saying something like "Polygamy in 1931?". Maybe he addresses it?

[Green Monstah]

Even though no one else found this interesting. I did Pelado!

I wonder why they changed the verbiage to section 132, as opposed to repealing it! Ha, I kid. But why did they previously think 'as early as 1831' and now they're not so sure?

There are a lot of people casting doubt on the authenticity of D&C 132 and whether it was even in existence when Smith died.

I came to believe the 1831 language was a way to bootstrap Fanny Alger (and others) into plural marriage. Perhaps there is good evidence that Smith simply had affairs in the Kirtland era or the church would rather not give a date for folks to research.

[USUC]

There are a lot of people casting doubt on the authenticity of D&C 132 and whether it was even in existence when Smith died.

By this do you mean the CoC and prominent voices in the ex-mormon community? I think most reputable historians (member and non-member) conclude it is authentic.

[Green Monstah]

By this do you mean the CoC and prominent voices in the ex-mormon community? I think most reputable historians (member and non-member) conclude it is authentic.

In the last few years, a new movement has formed who are lds, but believe polygamy was an invention of Young. That’s what I was referencing, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were using old RLDS arguments.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm not sure, but YouTube has been trying to get me to click on a Benjamin Park video that has a thumbnail saying something like "Polygamy in 1931?". Maybe he addresses it?

Hmm I'll have to try that one.

I came to believe the 1831 language was a way to bootstrap Fanny Alger (and others) into plural marriage. Perhaps there is good evidence that Smith simply had affairs in the Kirkland era or the church would rather not give a date for folks to research.

I get that, but I want to know why 1831 was explicitly stated before and now it isn't. I've read that it may be relating to a very early JS commandment to missionaries teaching Lamanites, and that it encouraged to marry them. I think it was a late remembrance by WW Phelps, so maybe it's provenance is now questioned?

[Green Monstah]

Hmm I'll have to try that one.



I get that, but I want to know why 1831 was explicitly stated before and now it isn't. I've read that it may be relating to a very early JS commandment to missionaries teaching Lamanites, and that it encouraged to marry them. I think it was a late remembrance by WW Phelps, so maybe it's provenance is now questioned?

Watch the ben park video referenced above. He discusses all of this.

WW Phelps claimed in 1869(?) that he transcribes a revelation re taking laminates (and nephites!) as plural wives, but no contemporaneous sources support this.

1831 was first introduced in the in the 1981 edition, probably in response to scholarship uncovering the WW Phelps claims, as well as increased interest in kirtland era sexual behavior/allegstions arising from new Mormon history and in response to Brodie, I’d imagine.

[falafel]

In the last few years, a new movement has formed who are lds, but believe polygamy was an invention of Young. That’s what I was referencing, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were using old RLDS arguments.

You have read Kingdom of Nauvoo by Benjamin Park? I'm guessing you have. If not, I would highly recommend it.

[falafel]

I'm not sure, but YouTube has been trying to get me to click on a Benjamin Park video that has a thumbnail saying something like "Polygamy in 1931?". Maybe he addresses it?

This is basically covered in the book, or a lot of it is.

[Green Monstah]

You have read Kingdom of Nauvoo by Benjamin Park? I'm guessing you have. If not, I would highly recommend it.

No. If I ever decide to allocate time to Mormon history again, I probably will.

[falafel]

No. If I ever decide to allocate time to Mormon history again, I probably will.

its really good. pretty much establishes the early, uncovered roots of polygamy in Nauvoo and how Joseph recruited new partners through other women, including Eliza Snow.