D&C Changes

[Uncle Ted]

Are you going to mention that those revelations were redrafted some 1-2 years after 1830 to include the word "Priesthood"?

Hmm... very interesting. I hadn't heard that.

[Katy Lied]

Are you going to mention that those revelations were redrafted some 1-2 years after 1830 to include the word "Priesthood"?

It really doesn't bother me that things changed, or were remembered differently, or that different versions were calibrated to a single story. I find it entirely possible that something significant happens but no one realizes at the time how significant it is, or how much it will matter in the future. I think this is the more likely story of the evolution of a spiritual movement. Later on someone will suggest that more emphasis be placed on a spcific interpretation of a historical event. That's pretty much how history is written up. As long as the parameters are defined by revelation (as we believe), I think there is a lot of room for differences in historical interpretation, and I don't sweat it when I find out that JS's first vision story evolved and changed. I think too many people want there to be one true explanation or one true story arc, and I think God allows for a lot more messiness in religious worship.

The last thing that really shook me was the disclosure that Isaiah's "Line upon line, precept upon precept" was a text-proof, and doesn't mean that at all. That really made me sorrowful because I love that interpretation of how God teaches and reveals. Not that God can't do it that way anyway, but it just feels so loving and nurturing the way Isaiah (apocryphally) put it.

[Uncle Ted]

Book of Abraham Introduction. The the short introduction to the Book of Abraham now reads--"An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph began the translation in the 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri." I believe this more appropriately describes the papyri as something that prompted or inspired Joseph's translation rather than the exact source of the material Joseph translated.

So when Joseph Smith said he was ""...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients" (HofTC, Volume 2) I guess he was actually just using the papyri to get prompted or inspired. So it is kind of like when I turn on Oprah to get inspired or prompted to work out more.

[Joe Public]

My 8-year-old randomly opened to the Book of Abraham on Sunday and asked me what it was. Good conversation ensued.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, this is what I was getting at. The section bolded and underlined above was commentary supplied by you, not a direct quote of some synopsis in JD.

If I were to scour the historical record for a definitive statement on the origin, I would think a statement by an early prophet in the form of "If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before..." would be a pretty solid candidate.

Either way, this issue of the historical record being unclear about the origins of the ban is disingenuous. I can assure you that you could say the same thing about almost every core doctrine of the church. If you read the BY talk I linked, he doesn't equivocate at all: blacks are the descendents of Cain and are cursed. The church has explicitly repudiated that idea, but is somehow unable to simply say "BY and other church leaders were wrong".

[Uncle Ted]

My 8-year-old randomly opened to the Book of Abraham on Sunday and asked me what it was. Good conversation ensued.

Now you can say it was a picture that prompted or inspired Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham that may or may not used the papyri (aka. "The Book of Breathings") as the source material I guess.

[Uncle Ted]

If I were to scour the historical record for a definitive statement on the origin, I would think a statement by an early prophet in the form of "If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before..." would be a pretty solid candidate.

Either way, this issue of the historical record being unclear about the origins of the ban is disingenuous. I can assure you that you could say the same thing about almost every core doctrine of the church. If you read the BY talk I linked, he doesn't equivocate at all: blacks are the descendents of Cain and are cursed. The church has explicitly repudiated that idea, but is somehow unable to simply say "BY and other church leaders were wrong".

Of course, if the church said that then the next question would be what else were they wrong about.

[Rickomatic]

The one thing I have learned about history, the unless you was there and witnessed the actual event, you can never know the true story. How many "witnesses" have told vastly different accounts of the same incident.

[Bruiserstone]

Progress yes, but Lebowski is right, the church has a hard time admitting sometimes leaders have been flat out wrong on issues. Look how long it took just to admit members involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The issue of race being a big one, and now homosexuality. The church has almost quietly been changing what they are saying about being gay (finally admitting people are just gay, none of the no inborn tendency garbage). They don't admit they were wrong, they start saying something else. I have yet to hear someone in authority just say, "What we have been saying concerning being gay, um forever, was wrong" (except for accepting your gay of course and having a relationship with someone, that is still wrong). There is the conundrum, admitting you were wrong on all the details concerning being gay, but it is still wrong to be gay. I guess it makes it kind of hard when BKP is still sitting there on the stand.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It really doesn't bother me that things changed, or were remembered differently, or that different versions were calibrated to a single story. I find it entirely possible that something significant happens but no one realizes at the time how significant it is, or how much it will matter in the future. I think this is the more likely story of the evolution of a spiritual movement. Later on someone will suggest that more emphasis be placed on a spcific interpretation of a historical event. That's pretty much how history is written up. As long as the parameters are defined by revelation (as we believe), I think there is a lot of room for differences in historical interpretation, and I don't sweat it when I find out that JS's first vision story evolved and changed. I think too many people want there to be one true explanation or one true story arc, and I think God allows for a lot more messiness in religious worship.

The last thing that really shook me was the disclosure that Isaiah's "Line upon line, precept upon precept" was a text-proof, and doesn't mean that at all. That really made me sorrowful because I love that interpretation of how God teaches and reveals. Not that God can't do it that way anyway, but it just feels so loving and nurturing the way Isaiah (apocryphally) put it.

Someday I hope to have you as my bishop.

[myboynoah]

Interesting development. While many would hope for a more expansive explanation or exploration, and even an open apology for the policy, IMO these things take time so as not to "shake the faith" of those that grew up with the view that such policies were dictated by God. I see this as another step toward fertilizing the ground for a more open look at and even acknowledgement of our past mistakes. For some it is not fast enough, for others it would be too fast and even disturbing. To refer to beloved prophets as racist is a harsh thing, and probably not that helpful because individually, that is a very charged word. We need to mature as a faith, and I believe this type of self-introspection is a sign of that. I recently attended a meeting where I heard a member of the Twelve call the policy "racist" several times. I thought that was pretty significant.

[Pheidippides]

So I've been through the side-by-side comparison (skimmed only) and there are some major things in there.

(1) Serious, the church produced a side-by-side. I can't get over how awesome I think that is. That's the biggest thing of all, IMO.
(2) The historical information is beefed up in many sections.
(3) New intro to both OD1 and OD2. The one for OD1 is less...er...incorrect? Somehow that doesn't capture it. They imply that polygamy was a revealed practice to JS (I disagree but that's hardly orthodox) but the fact that they tie 132 and plural marriage together so tightly, and make it clear it was JS that revealed it, is something I didn't get as a kid, for dang sure. I scratch my head over the statement at the end that the manifesto led to the end of plural marriage. I guess that's not technically wrong but it's not exactly forthcoming. Still, they can hardly give a full explanation of post-manifesto polygamy at that point, so I'll not throw too many stones. Progress.
(4) We've already beat the hell out of OD2 here. Progress.
(5) In the POTG, look very carefully at the changed description of the Book of Abraham. Now an inspired translation started after JS received some papyri, not a translation of the papyri. Innocuous to those who know nothing, meaningful to those who know something. Not sure what I think - misleading but accurate? Red herring? I guess I view it as a, "yeah, we know all about this issue" statement.

Overall, I think this is a huge development. I haven't been through the study guides yet but I'm excited.

[Northwestcoug]

It really doesn't bother me that things changed, or were remembered differently, or that different versions were calibrated to a single story. I find it entirely possible that something significant happens but no one realizes at the time how significant it is, or how much it will matter in the future. I think this is the more likely story of the evolution of a spiritual movement. Later on someone will suggest that more emphasis be placed on a spcific interpretation of a historical event. That's pretty much how history is written up. As long as the parameters are defined by revelation (as we believe), I think there is a lot of room for differences in historical interpretation, and I don't sweat it when I find out that JS's first vision story evolved and changed. I think too many people want there to be one true explanation or one true story arc, and I think God allows for a lot more messiness in religious worship.

The last thing that really shook me was the disclosure that Isaiah's "Line upon line, precept upon precept" was a text-proof, and doesn't mean that at all. That really made me sorrowful because I love that interpretation of how God teaches and reveals. Not that God can't do it that way anyway, but it just feels so loving and nurturing the way Isaiah (apocryphally) put it.

I would love to be part of a religion that has a more honest view of its history. I would love to have faith in a belief system that is courageous enough to freely apologize for its past. But of course official Mormonism can't allow for that. The official history of the church is inextricably tied to its doctrine. Its doctrine is its history, and vice versa. There is no reason for mormon doctrine to exist if it's history is not factually correct, or at the very least its interpretation of history.

I understand and agree with you when you say that history is susceptible to human error, and we shouldn't expect more from the church. However, nowhere in official church teachings can we find alternate views that are presented as acceptable. Even in the face of inescapable evidence, the church will not budge until it is forced to.

[Uncle Ted]

Progress yes, but Lebowski is right, the church has a hard time admitting sometimes leaders have been flat out wrong on issues. Look how long it took just to admit members involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The issue of race being a big one, and now homosexuality. The church has almost quietly been changing what they are saying about being gay (finally admitting people are just gay, none of the no inborn tendency garbage). They don't admit they were wrong, they start saying something else. I have yet to hear someone in authority just say, "What we have been saying concerning being gay, um forever, was wrong" (except for accepting your gay of course and having a relationship with someone, that is still wrong). There is the conundrum, admitting you were wrong on all the details concerning being gay, but it is still wrong to be gay. I guess it makes it kind of hard when BKP is still sitting there on the stand.

I like to blame it taking so long for the church to issue an apology for the MMM on the lawyers...

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?5593-MEP-BRM-and-Racism&p=715631&viewfull=1#post715631

[Uncle Ted]

Here is the explanations for most of the significant changes made to the headings:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/explanations-for-the-doctrine-and-covenants-section-headings

Explanations for the OD1 and OD2 changes are missing, however.