The D&C Deception

[_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?

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

Here you go; they are both online. Maybe you can point the differences out to me.

Current text of three witnesses:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

1830 text of three witnesses (http://www.carm.org/LDS/1830bom.htm):

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Current text of eight witnesses:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. 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.

1830 text of eight witnessess:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. 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.

[_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

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.

Oh. Excuse me. I doubt you'll find missionaries reading this board to respond. I didn't read WW's book on my mission until about 18 months in.

Can you comment upon the fact that WW's two-volume work is sold in Church bookstores? You'll find a set on the shelves at BYU Bookstore today. Who is at fault here for not possessing this knowledge when you speak to them, the Church or the non-reader?


P

[_Runtu]

Oh. Excuse me. I doubt you'll find missionaries reading this board to respond. I didn't read WW's book on my mission until about 18 months in.

Can you comment upon the fact that WW's two-volume work is sold in Church bookstores? You'll find a set on the shelves at BYU Bookstore today. Who is at fault here for not possessing this knowledge when you speak to them, the Church or the non-reader?


P

That's really not a fair question. We've all been told not to stray from the manuals, and as you mentioned, the manuals are not going to include tidbits like this. I've been in wards where the bishop might have taken you aside and reprimanded you for bringing this up in Sunday School, but not all bishops would. I would like to see the manuals tackle more, but as long as we're taught that the manuals are all we need to know, stuff like this is not going to be widely known.

[_harmony]

Oh. Excuse me. I doubt you'll find missionaries reading this board to respond. I didn't read WW's book on my mission until about 18 months in.

Can you comment upon the fact that WW's two-volume work is sold in Church bookstores? You'll find a set on the shelves at BYU Bookstore today. Who is at fault here for not possessing this knowledge when you speak to them, the Church or the non-reader?


P

That's really not a fair question. We've all been told not to stray from the manuals, and as you mentioned, the manuals are not going to include tidbits like this. I've been in wards where the bishop might have taken you aside and reprimanded you for bringing this up in Sunday School, but not all bishops would. I would like to see the manuals tackle more, but as long as we're taught that the manuals are all we need to know, stuff like this is not going to be widely known.

I am a convert. And like many converts, I did not attend Seminary, Primary, Mutual, or a LDS college. I had no access to a church bookstore until about 10 years ago. I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere; the internet was not available here until about 1995. I knew nothing about the revisions until a couple of years ago. Blaming someone for not knowing something that is not taught in Sunday School or Relief Society/Priesthood is not cool.

[_Coggins7]

Keep in mind Plutarch, that the history of counter cult anti-Mormonism and the more recent liberal secularist variety is rife with approaches of the kind we have in this thread.

Claims of the church's "whitewashed" history and of attempts to hide alterations in the texts of canonical scripture or unusual peripheral doctrines have always been rather odd to me, since the church has been publishing rebuttles of such material for generations (courtesy of scholars like Nibley), in which the original criticisms are set out in detail. Further, as you point out, any Latter Day Saint who really wanted to explore such issues could have done so through published church or church supported sources for quite a long time.

I'm also not sure why critics think missionaries are going to go out with stacks of Dialong, Sunstone, and every infinitely footnoted tome written by Quinn, Metcalf, or the Tanners, and make every attempt to bring up, hash out, and rebut, point by point, every criticism ever made by any critic of the church from the nineteenth century to the present, especially when many of those criticisms have been answered adaquately for generations and others plausibly responded to if not laid to rest.

It would be rather interesting, would it not, to subject some of the critics here to the same treatment they give to the church. It would be interesting to subject what they believe in to the same sound thrashing, especially those evengelical Protestants or Catholics here who's traditions have a very long and complex history.

Just as it would be interesting to subject many members of the mainstream media to their own "gotcha" journalism, it would be interesting to see just how the belief systems many here hold as alternatives to "Mormonism" held up under the withering blows of philosophical and historical criticism.

Loran

[_Runtu]

Keep in mind Plutarch, that the history of counter cult anti-Mormonism and the more recent liberal secularist variety is rife with approaches of the kind we have in this thread.

Claims of the church's "whitewashed" history and of attempts to hide alterations in the texts of canonical scripture or unusual peripheral doctrines have always been rather odd to me, since the church has been publishing rebuttles of such material for generations (courtesy of scholars like Nibley), in which the original criticisms are set out in detail. Further, as you point out any Latter Day Saint who really wanted to explore such issues could have done so through published church or church supported sources for quite a long time.

I'm also not sure why critics think missionaries are going to go out with stacks of Dialong, Sunstone, and every infinitely footnoted tome written by Quinn, Metcalf, or the Tanners, and make every attempt to bring up, hash out, and rebut, point by point, every criticism ever made by any critic of the church from the nineteenth century to the present, especially when many of those criticisms have been answered adaquately for generations and others plausibly responded to if not laid to rest.

It would be rather interesting, would it not, to subject some of the critics here to the same treatment they give to the church. It would be interesting to subject what they believe in to the same sound thrashing, especially those evengelical Protestants or Catholics here who's traditions have a very long and complex history.

Just as it would be interesting to subject many members of the mainstream media to their own "gotcha" journalism, it would be interesting to see just how the belief systems many here hold as alternatives to "Mormonism" held up under the withering blows of philosophical and historical criticism.

Loran

Loran,

Please don't put words into my mouth. I specifically said I don't think they're trying to hide anything. When I was working on the manuals, it never occurred to me to do anything but cover the subject matter assigned. I wouldn't have thought to include a discussion of D&C changes. I'm just saying it's not quite fair to say it's the membership's fault for not knowing church history when the church doesn't really attempt to teach its own history.

And I'm sorry you haven't been well. I hurt my back two days before Christmas. Crummy time to be under the weather, isn't it?

[_Coggins7]

You are not the only one posting on this thread Runtu.

[_Runtu]

You are not the only one posting on this thread Runtu.

I know, but you made some rather sweeping statements about the critics on this thread. And that would include me.

[_Coggins7]

You are not the only one posting on this thread Runtu. No one's putting words in your mouth. I'm responding to a general tendency and the same general claims to which Plutarch was responding. The Wood books have been available, and many others, detailing the problems in church history and texts that anti-Mormons have been harping on for decades, are out there for inquireing minds who want to know.

Claims that the church hides this and that, when it patently doesn't, invoke suspicions of less than sterling motivations from the critics themselves, or even lesser actual knowledge of church scholarship on these subjects and the degree to which such scholarship is available to LDS and supported by the church either directly or indirectly. The point is, all of the classic criticisms of the church are available for analysis in church approved or supported sources, and any Mormon interested in them can aquire them and learn of them at any time. Neither the conservative anti-Mormons nor the liberal secualrists are special and annointed sources of gnostic secrets the rest of us TBM's were worfully unaware of.

As an aside, Itls really difficult to believe we're actually revisiting the changes in scripture dead horse here. Of all the criticisms ever made of the church over the last 50 years, this is without doubt one of the weakest. I've never seen a single, solitary instance of an altered text in any canonical text that was anything but either trivial, or explainable in terms of changing conditions around the church or the development of church doctrine in the line upon line manner in which it is supposed to come. The very idea that the Lord could not limit Joseph to one gift at one time, and then in a later revelation expand or revoke it, involves either a rigid fundamentalist attitude toward the nature of scripture, or a flat footed rejection of the very concept of divine scripture and hence a retreat to the default position of purely sociological and psychological explanations for everything surrounding the origins of the church and its core texts.

Protestants especially, should be more than a little circumspect when criticising the church for alterations in its scriptures. Very careful.

[_Runtu]

You are not the only one posting on this thread Runtu. No one's putting words in your mouth. I'm responding to a general tendency and the same general claims to which Plutarch was responding. The Wood books have been available, and many others, detailing the problems in church history and texts that anti-Mormons have been harping on for decades, are out there for inquireing minds who want to know.

Claims that the church hides this and that, when it patently doesn't, invoke suspicions of less than sterling motivations from the critics themselves, or even lesser actual knowledge of church scholarship on these subjects and the degree to which.

As an aside, Itls really difficult to believe we're actually revisiting the changes in scripture dead horse here. Of all the criticisms ever made of the church over the last 50 years, this is without doubt one of the weakest. I've never seen a single, solitary instance of an altered text in any canonical text that was anything but either trivial, or explainable in terms of changing conditions around the church or the development of church doctrine in the line upon line manner in which it is supposed to come. The very idea that the Lord could not limit Joseph to one gift at one time, and then in a later revelation expand or revoke it, involves either a rigid fundamentalist attitude toward the nature of scripture, or a flat footed rejection of the very concept of divine scripture and hence a retreat to the default position of purely sociological and psychological explanations for everything surrounding the origins of the church and its core texts.

Protestants especially, should be more than a little circumspect when criticising the church for alterations in its scriptures. Very careful.

Heh. I'm not a Protestant. I'm a Mormon. I've said in previous posts that I think Mormonism's seeming practice of a fluid text is a positive thing. The problem comes in the stated belief in the authority of revealed text. But I haven't criticized any "hiding." I'm also on record as saying that, no matter what the Tanners said, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was an admirable, tremendous achievement in bringing back the text to a more pristine version.