The D&C Deception

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Is CARM wrong? That is where I located the 1830 text.

http://www.carm.org/LDS/1830bom.htm

P

What, you thought CARM is infallible? Aren't they just humans after all? Were they speaking as prophets? Did you pray for a testimony of what they said?

Huh? They are a noted anti-Mormon site. Why would I pray for a testimony of what they said?

P

(Note to myself: Plutarch is quite literal-minded. Try to keep things simple for him.)

My serious question for you: Is it ethical to make changes of any kind in a sworn testimony, even inconsesquential punctuation?

[_rcrocket]

(Note to myself: Plutarch is quite literal-minded. Try to keep things simple for him.)

My serious question for you: Is it ethical to make changes of any kind in a sworn testimony, even inconsesquential punctuation?

(Note to self: LM wouldn't see sarcasm if it bit her in the rear.)

Thank you for keeping things simple.

The changes to the witness statement is now out of my area of expertise if I ever had any such thing, but here is my observation from what I can see.

This is not sworn testimony. (That required in 1830 a statement before a notary or court officer.) It is just a printed statement in a book, an affirmation. The witnesses affirmed their testimony by simply permitting it to be published. The reason I asked the question as to whether the witnesses' statement was changed to "translator" during the prophet's lifetime, like in the second edition when the witnesses were all in the church, it would simply be a permitted reaffirmation.

It would be like you published an article in Harvard Business Review, and the two years later the Review called you up to publish a reprint, telling you it wanted to make some technical fixes.

But, getting my hands on the second or third edition would be rather difficult.


P

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Also for Plutarch:

You made this statement earlier in the thread:

Wilford Wood's 2-vol book "Joseph Smith Begins His Works" is sold in Church-owned bookstores. I learned about the "first edition" of the D&C as a high school student in a seminary class my father taught, and read about the evolution and changes to the D&C in church publications as a 19-year-old.

I have taught classes in Church sunday schools using Wood's book(s), tracing the changes and offering explanations.

So, extensive as your education may have been, you were taken by surprise by the changes to the witnesses' testimony. I hope you can admit, even if only to yourself, that you don't really know so much after all.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

(Note to myself: Plutarch is quite literal-minded. Try to keep things simple for him.)

My serious question for you: Is it ethical to make changes of any kind in a sworn testimony, even inconsesquential punctuation?

(Note to self: LM wouldn't see sarcasm if it bit her in the rear.)

Thank you for keeping things simple.

The changes to the witness statement is now out of my area of expertise if I ever had any such thing, but here is my observation from what I can see.

This is not sworn testimony. (That required in 1830 a statement before a notary or court officer.) It is just a printed statement in a book, an affirmation. The witnesses affirmed their testimony by simply permitting it to be published. The reason I asked the question as to whether the witnesses' statement was changed to "translator" during the prophet's lifetime, like in the second edition when the witnesses were all in the church, it would simply be a permitted reaffirmation.

It would be like you published an article in Harvard Business Review, and the two years later the Review called you up to publish a reprint, telling you it wanted to make some technical fixes.

But, getting my hands on the second or third edition would be rather difficult.
P

The testimony of the eight ends with these words: "And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."

That is usually known as swearing. It's not the least bit like an article in the Harvard Business Review.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I have Wilford Wood's edition now. Aside from spelling and punctuation changes, I see only that Joseph Smith is identified in the 1830 version as "Author and Proprietor" and in the modern version as "translator". I see no other changes.

When was the change made? During the lifetime of the Prophet?

P

The statement from the original eight witnesses was given in June, 1829. The changes were made by Joseph, Parley P., and Oliver C. in Kirtland in 1837. David, one of the Three Witnesses, was in Kirtland at the time but I believe the other Whitmers remained behind in Missouri when their testimony was changed. Months later the Whitmers along with Oliver Cowdery were excommunicated.


Phaedrus

[_Runtu]

I have Wilford Wood's edition now. Aside from spelling and punctuation changes, I see only that Joseph Smith is identified in the 1830 version as "Author and Proprietor" and in the modern version as "translator". I see no other changes.

When was the change made? During the lifetime of the Prophet?

P

The statement from the original eight witnesses was given in June, 1829. The changes were made by Joseph, Parley P., and Oliver C. in Kirtland in 1837. David, one of the Three Witnesses, was in Kirtland at the time but I believe the other Whitmers remained behind in Missouri when their testimony was changed. Months later the Whitmers along with Oliver Cowdery were excommunicated.


Phaedrus

Yes, Joseph did some pretty extensive revisions in 1837 and then did some more in 1840, along with an attempt to match the text more closely to the original manuscript. Unfortunately, those 1840 changes were included only in one edition of the Book of Mormon and then not reproduced until the 1981 edition. As I've said before, I really think they did a monumental job with the 1981 edition to get it close to reflecting the extant original manuscripts and Joseph's changes.

[_rcrocket]

The testimony of the eight ends with these words: "And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."

That is usually known as swearing. It's not the least bit like an article in the Harvard Business Review.

Madam, that ain't swearing, at least enough to bring one under the perjury statutes of the various laws of the states. But I don't see how much difference it makes. I don't see it as an unacceptable alteration by any means, at least under the law.

And, I am always learning. I never purported to be an expert in everything.

P

[_rcrocket]

-
Presumably, an Ethiopian convert would have become familiar with the scriptures and teachings of the church, such as were available. So one would expect him to eventually discover these "grossly offensive doctrine[s]" in his sojourn in the church. They are in the scriptures, after all.

There were no "scriptures" describing Jesus' ministry or the doctrine of eating and drinking flesh and blood at the time the Ethopian was baptised. [Why would he be asking who was the man referenced in Isaiah if he had the scriptures before him?]

And, one cannot presume that an Ethopian convert (a Gentile) would be familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. The presumption would be that he would not.

I agree with Loran. Should have had Signature Books to nip the heresy in the bud.

P

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

The testimony of the eight ends with these words: "And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."

That is usually known as swearing. It's not the least bit like an article in the Harvard Business Review.

Madam, that ain't swearing, at least enough to bring one under the perjury statutes of the various laws of the states. But I don't see how much difference it makes. I don't see it as an unacceptable alteration by any means, at least under the law.

And, I am always learning. I never purported to be an expert in everything.

P

I'm not talking perjury. I'm talking ethics.

[_Runtu]

-
Presumably, an Ethiopian convert would have become familiar with the scriptures and teachings of the church, such as were available. So one would expect him to eventually discover these "grossly offensive doctrine[s]" in his sojourn in the church. They are in the scriptures, after all.

There were no "scriptures" describing Jesus' ministry or the doctrine of eating and drinking flesh and blood at the time the Ethopian was baptised. [Why would he be asking who was the man referenced in Isaiah if he had the scriptures before him?]

And, one cannot presume that an Ethopian convert (a Gentile) would be familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. The presumption would be that he would not.

I agree with Loran. Should have had Signature Books to nip the heresy in the bud.

P

As I said, he would "have become familiar with the scriptures and teachings of the church, such as were available." Maybe I wasn't clear, but I would assume that a person who joined the Christian church then would eventually become familiar with the church's teachings, not that he came in already knowing the Hebrew scriptures.

I don't fault the church for not insisting that members know all the details (we would have had long-term job security if they had). But I do think it's silly to fault the members for not knowing things about their religion when the religion not only doesn't provide the information, but discourages members from looking to unofficial sources.