The D&C Deception

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

This is reminding me that the testimonies of the witnesses as printed in the Book of Mormon have also undergone changes over the years, at least I recall reading that somewhere along the line. They may have been simply typographical, but ethically I don't think even that should have been allowed to what the original paper stated.

[_MormonMendacity]

This is reminding me that the testimonies of the witnesses as printed in the Book of Mormon have also undergone changes over the years, at least I recall reading that somewhere along the line. They may have been simply typographical, but ethically I don't think even that should have been allowed to what the original paper stated.

What I have come now to think is even more strange is that these men did not post individual testimonies. It was drafted, like the Declaration of Independence, for them to sign.

I wonder why? Could it have been so that one or more of them didn't describe it "wrong"?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

Along with the lectures on faith, the scripture very clearly stating polygamy was wrong and not of God and not doctrinal was REMOVED from official, canonized scripture. How many believers know this?

I read the D&C after spending much time deep in prayer and meditation on the beatitudes and the sermon on the Mount. All I can say is, even as a fourteen year old I "knew" the D&C was not of God... or at least not the channeled words of Jesus. I had such a dark, gloomy, sad response... I still do while reading much of it. But that first time was a very powerful experience for me. It just felt so wrong somehow. The Beatitudes filled me with such light and peace; they inspired me and gave me such a beautiful direction and sense of love. I felt the exact opposite while reading the D&C.

Or course at the time I thought there was something wrong with me... or satan was trying to influence me! ;-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

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".

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, there, you've met one person.

P

[_rcrocket]

This is reminding me that the testimonies of the witnesses as printed in the Book of Mormon have also undergone changes over the years, at least I recall reading that somewhere along the line. They may have been simply typographical, but ethically I don't think even that should have been allowed to what the original paper stated.

Reference to this claim?

[_Runtu]

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".

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, there, you've met one person.

P

Cool. I'm happy that you have done that. I remember years ago having Alan Goff try to explain the Isaiah problems in Gospel Doctrine and having the reactions range from outrage to a bewildered "huh?". I'm all for more education and knowledge, which can't help but be a good thing for believers and unbelievers alike.

[_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".

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, there, you've met one person.

P

I mean in person not internet. And I mean missionaries for the most part. Because few lay person like to discuss things not faith promoting.

[_rcrocket]

Cool. I'm happy that you have done that. I remember years ago having Alan Goff try to explain the Isaiah problems in Gospel Doctrine and having the reactions range from outrage to a bewildered "huh?". I'm all for more education and knowledge, which can't help but be a good thing for believers and unbelievers alike.

Given the church publications on the issue, I don't see anybody trying to hide anything on this particular topic. It is just that Mormon theology and history is so dense that few are really interested in tackling it to all of its ramifications. The same could be said about Christian history, or Muslim history.

But, what happens is that the average member of the Church, lacking knowledge of these things, is held up as the poster child for Church deception. This Board is quite an example of such an argument, as anecdote after anecdote is spilled out about how things are not taught, and not disclosed, etc. etc.

P

[_Runtu]

Cool. I'm happy that you have done that. I remember years ago having Alan Goff try to explain the Isaiah problems in Gospel Doctrine and having the reactions range from outrage to a bewildered "huh?". I'm all for more education and knowledge, which can't help but be a good thing for believers and unbelievers alike.

Given the church publications on the issue, I don't see anybody trying to hide anything on this particular topic. It is just that Mormon theology and history is so dense that few are really interested in tackling it to all of its ramifications. The same could be said about Christian history, or Muslim history.

But, what happens is that the average member of the Church, lacking knowledge of these things, is held up as the poster child for Church deception. This Board is quite an example of such an argument, as anecdote after anecdote is spilled out about how things are not taught, and not disclosed, etc. etc.

P

Having worked on church publications, I quite agree with you (I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting that anyone is hiding anything). I also said I was surprised at the amount of revision involved. I'm all for more information being out there. Unfortunately, we as a church have gotten used to a steady diet of milk, and we balk at the meat whenever it shows up.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

This is reminding me that the testimonies of the witnesses as printed in the Book of Mormon have also undergone changes over the years, at least I recall reading that somewhere along the line. They may have been simply typographical, but ethically I don't think even that should have been allowed to what the original paper stated.

Reference to this claim?

I don't have a reference. Maybe someone who has earlier editions of the Book of Mormon could make a quick comparison? Thanks.