D&C Changes

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[Joe Public]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Uncle Ted]

Thanks for linking. It is really cool that the church released a complete side-by-side list of the changes. If you are cynical, you will say that they were just beating others to the punch, as it was bound to happen soon anyway, but it is still cool.

I agree with the post that the intro to OD2 is very interesting. Especially the part that says

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.

I think Brigham Young just rolled over in his grave. Very cool.

[Indy Coug]

I don't care what you consider conceded because you are wrong. Please rest assured that it is entirely personal. I don't care to interact with you further here or elsewhere on any religious matter, so please now feel free to take the last word on the subject without fear of response.

[Moliere]

Helpful that my lesson is on the restoration of the priesthood.

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

[Pheidippides]

I don't really give a shit if you want to play "the game" or not. I've discovered what that amounts to is that simply you know damn well what the answer is and you don't want to admit it. I consider the point I was making conceded by you and we can now move onto other things to hold over the church's head.

I don't care what you consider conceded because you are wrong. Please rest assured that it is entirely personal. I don't care to interact with you further here or elsewhere on any religious matter, so please now feel free to take the last word on the subject without fear of response.