The D&C Deception

[_rureal.2]

I have yet to meet an LDS in person who knew the history of the D&C they cherish. I mean the Book of Commandments followed by the first edition D&C. It amazes me that a person could blindly follow tradition without studing the beginning of a faith when those books are available to be studied in "Joseph Smith Begins His Works VolII".

[_Runtu]

Back when I was working at the COB, we had a guy working on the translator's edition of the triple combination. He basically took a large-print edition of the 1981 Book of Mormon and compared it to every LDS edition and the original manuscript and printer's manuscript. It was frankly fascinating to see all the changes, some minor, some not. And there wasn't anything faith-shattering, at least not to me.

But when he came to the D&C, he said that it was very difficult because there were no originals of any of the revelations, and many had been heavily revised and rewritten, especially those that were published both in the D&C and the Book of Commandments. He said he had no idea how they would sort it out.

I think a lot of members of the church would indeed be surprised at the extent of changes in the scriptures. Being in the publishing business, I expect some human error, but the extent surprised even me.

[_truth dancer]

Hi R... Welcome to the board.

It amazes me that a person could blindly follow tradition without studing the beginning of a faith when those books are available to be studied in "Joseph Smith Begins His Works VolII".

As one who blindly followed tradition without studying the beginnings of it all....

I joined the church as a child, trusted those who taught me, read from church approved material. I did not live near a church bookstore, it was pre-internet, no LDS books in the library, no family members or friends who were LDS, and no reason to suspect what I was being taught was incorrect.

I suppose I'm giving an excuse and I should have known better but alas, I didn't have any idea what I was being taught was not truth.

I wonder if we often trust until we have reason not to? Or perhaps there are those who are just more trusting than others? or maybe we just do not want to believe those we trust are not trustworthy?

I remember very clearly when I first read the D&C... I was fourteen. I disliked is to much. It felt dark and cold; nothing like the gospels which I had come to love. I thought it could not possibly be true. After hearing various leaders counsel me to not read that which is not faith promoting I decided I could never read the D&C again. I held to that until I took a D&C class at BYU. I was hoping I would learn more and feel better about it but no. It only made me less certain the book was inspired.

It wasn't until many years later I learned of the actual history of the D&C and its many changes and alterations.

~dancer~

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hi R... Welcome to the board.

It amazes me that a person could blindly follow tradition without studing the beginning of a faith when those books are available to be studied in "Joseph Smith Begins His Works VolII".

As one who blindly followed tradition without studying the beginnings of it all....

I joined the church as a child, trusted those who taught me, read from church approved material. I did not live near a church bookstore, it was pre-internet, no LDS books in the library, no family members or friends who were LDS, and no reason to suspect what I was being taught was incorrect.

I suppose I'm giving an excuse and I should have known better but alas, I didn't have any idea what I was being taught was not truth.

I wonder if we often trust until we have reason not to? Or perhaps there are those who are just more trusting than others? or maybe we just do not want to believe those we trust are not trustworthy?

I remember very clearly when I first read the D&C... I was fourteen. I disliked is to much. It felt dark and cold; nothing like the gospels which I had come to love. I thought it could not possibly be true. After hearing various leaders counsel me to not read that which is not faith promoting I decided I could never read the D&C again. I held to that until I took a D&C class at BYU. I was hoping I would learn more and feel better about it but no. It only made me less certain the book was inspired.

It wasn't until many years later I learned of the actual history of the D&C and its many changes and alterations.

~dancer~

Amen, Sister. I was exactly the same. Baptized at 14 and so enamored of the church that I accepted everything at face value. No resources around to speak of, we had the standards of the time, like Mormon Doctrine and Talmedge's book, a few others. The first time I actually read the D&C from cover to cover was on my mission and I was struck by the mean-spiritedness of it all. I also perceived the rampant manipulations of Joseph Smith but put those on the shelf. It didn't shake my testimony at the time -- I was a good Mormon, unquestioning and unanaytical. I still don't know much about the history of changes, but my view of God has changed so radically to make the D&C totally unacceptable as having anything to do with divine inspiration.

[_Sam Harris]

Hi R... Welcome to the board.

It amazes me that a person could blindly follow tradition without studing the beginning of a faith when those books are available to be studied in "Joseph Smith Begins His Works VolII".

As one who blindly followed tradition without studying the beginnings of it all....

I joined the church as a child, trusted those who taught me, read from church approved material. I did not live near a church bookstore, it was pre-internet, no LDS books in the library, no family members or friends who were LDS, and no reason to suspect what I was being taught was incorrect.

I suppose I'm giving an excuse and I should have known better but alas, I didn't have any idea what I was being taught was not truth.

I wonder if we often trust until we have reason not to? Or perhaps there are those who are just more trusting than others? or maybe we just do not want to believe those we trust are not trustworthy?

I remember very clearly when I first read the D&C... I was fourteen. I disliked is to much. It felt dark and cold; nothing like the gospels which I had come to love. I thought it could not possibly be true. After hearing various leaders counsel me to not read that which is not faith promoting I decided I could never read the D&C again. I held to that until I took a D&C class at BYU. I was hoping I would learn more and feel better about it but no. It only made me less certain the book was inspired.

It wasn't until many years later I learned of the actual history of the D&C and its many changes and alterations.

~dancer~

I think many people do trust until given a reason not to. And it is that broken trust that is the reason for so much anger and anguish within the church.

I myself trust until given a reason not to. Sometimes folks give me a reason not to very early on, sometimes before we even interact, I see warning signs. Other times it takes a while, and that betrayal of trust is by far the most painful.

But I too believed what I had been told until I learned otherwise. I can't see all LDS in a negative light for being LDS. There are Mormons who are happy Mormons, and I don't want to take that from them. Then there are those like Wade, and you just want to give folks like that an eternal wedgie.

To each his own, I can't fault an LDS for just wanting to live their faith in the best way possible for them. It ain't about Lamanites and Nephites for me. I didn't believe in that early on, but that wasn't the issue for me. Believe in what you want to, no matter what the tradition, so long as your life and the lives touched by you are positively effected.

My half a cent. I'd post more, but I'm tired. Mom just whupped me in bowling.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi R... Welcome to the board.

It amazes me that a person could blindly follow tradition without studying the beginning of a faith when those books are available to be studied in "Joseph Smith Begins His Works VolII".

As one who blindly followed tradition without studying the beginnings of it all....

I joined the church as a child, trusted those who taught me, read from church approved material. I did not live near a church bookstore, it was pre-internet, no LDS books in the library, no family members or friends who were LDS, and no reason to suspect what I was being taught was incorrect.

I suppose I'm giving an excuse and I should have known better but alas, I didn't have any idea what I was being taught was not truth.

I wonder if we often trust until we have reason not to? Or perhaps there are those who are just more trusting than others? or maybe we just do not want to believe those we trust are not trustworthy?

I remember very clearly when I first read the D&C... I was fourteen. I disliked is to much. It felt dark and cold; nothing like the gospels which I had come to love. I thought it could not possibly be true. After hearing various leaders counsel me to not read that which is not faith promoting I decided I could never read the D&C again. I held to that until I took a D&C class at BYU. I was hoping I would learn more and feel better about it but no. It only made me less certain the book was inspired.

It wasn't until many years later I learned of the actual history of the D&C and its many changes and alterations.

~dancer~

Interesting. I always liked the D&C and still do much of it. But I was surprised when I learned that there were fairly significant changes from the Book of Commandments to the 1835 D&C. Mostly I did not have a problem with it. And I still do not for those changes that seem innocuous. However, a few were not innocuous and that still bugs me. As I studied this issue I came to believe that no scripture ever was given in divine dictation form and I would guess if we had all the original manuscripts of the Bible we would see the authors worked hard and did much editing to their texts.

However, I do recall reading a quote from JFS about the D&C that essentially posited that the D&C was from mouth to paper with little or not changes. It may be in Doctrine of Salvation and that sort of bugged me. I know I should look this up, but no time now.

But nobody is ever taught that the D&C went through major revisions, that the 1835 D&C contained the canonized lectures that were later dropped with an explanation that they were not on par with the revelations. The Church just does not give information that may diminish from the positive divine side of the restoration.

[_Runtu]

Interesting. I always liked the D&C and still do much of it. But I was surprised when I learned that there were fairly significant changes from the Book of Commandments to the 1835 D&C. Mostly I did not have a problem with it. And I still do not for those changes that seem innocuous. However, a few were not innocuous and that still bugs me. As I studied this issue I came to believe that no scripture ever was given in divine dictation form and I would guess if we had all the original manuscripts of the Bible we would see the authors worked hard and did much editing to their texts.

However, I do recall reading a quote from JFS about the D&C that essentially posited that the D&C was from mouth to paper with little or not changes. It may be in Doctrine of Salvation and that sort of bugged me. I know I should look this up, but no time now.

But nobody is ever taught that the D&C went through major revisions, that the 1835 D&C contained the canonized lectures that were later dropped with an explanation that they were not on par with the revelations. The Church just does not give information that may diminish from the positive divine side of the restoration.

Well, yeah, there's all that about some truth not being useful. As I said before, the notion that the church does not treat text as hard and fast and immutable appeals to me. If they would teach the fluid nature of revelation, I think they'd have less trouble keeping believers like me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Interesting. I always liked the D&C and still do much of it. But I was surprised when I learned that there were fairly significant changes from the Book of Commandments to the 1835 D&C. Mostly I did not have a problem with it. And I still do not for those changes that seem innocuous. However, a few were not innocuous and that still bugs me. As I studied this issue I came to believe that no scripture ever was given in divine dictation form and I would guess if we had all the original manuscripts of the Bible we would see the authors worked hard and did much editing to their texts.

However, I do recall reading a quote from JFS about the D&C that essentially posited that the D&C was from mouth to paper with little or not changes. It may be in Doctrine of Salvation and that sort of bugged me. I know I should look this up, but no time now.

But nobody is ever taught that the D&C went through major revisions, that the 1835 D&C contained the canonized lectures that were later dropped with an explanation that they were not on par with the revelations. The Church just does not give information that may diminish from the positive divine side of the restoration.

Well, yeah, there's all that about some truth not being useful. As I said before, the notion that the church does not treat text as hard and fast and immutable appeals to me. If they would teach the fluid nature of revelation, I think they'd have less trouble keeping believers like me.

It seems at times the Church wants to play both sides of this.

One correction. I said I always liked the D&C and that is true for much of it. But I also recell reading some of the sections as teen, especially the ones that say that nobody else can give revelations other then Joseph Smith, and I thought "Now that is pretty convenient." On the other hand he included revelations rebuking himself which seemed pretty candid to me.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But I was surprised when I learned that there were fairly significant changes from the Book of Commandments to the 1835 D&C. Mostly I did not have a problem with it. And I still do not for those changes that seem innocuous. However, a few were not innocuous and that still bugs me.

I first became aware of this when I read David Whitmer's late-in-life writings about why he left the LDS Church. One big reason he cites is that a revelation that appeared in the Book of Commandments stated that Joseph's only gift from God would be to translate the Gold Plates; in the later D&C, however, this limitation was removed from the revelation. Whitmer interpreted this change to be due to Joseph's desire to lead the LDS Church, which was somewhat hamstrung by the original limitation ... so he just edited it out.

[_Jason Bourne]

But I was surprised when I learned that there were fairly significant changes from the Book of Commandments to the 1835 D&C. Mostly I did not have a problem with it. And I still do not for those changes that seem innocuous. However, a few were not innocuous and that still bugs me.

I first became aware of this when I read David Whitmer's late-in-life writings about why he left the LDS Church. One big reason he cites is that a revelation that appeared in the Book of Commandments stated that Joseph's only gift from God would be to translate the Gold Plates; in the later D&C, however, this limitation was removed from the revelation. Whitmer interpreted this change to be due to Joseph's desire to lead the LDS Church, which was somewhat hamstrung by the original limitation ... so he just edited it out.

in my opinion the changes to this section are one of the more problematic.