The D&C Deception

[_harmony]

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.

A friend of mine used to claim that a church bookstore contained more than enough information for anyone to apostacize. The problem is, many church members are unable to afford the luxury of buying books at the bookstore, after paying their required tithes and offerings, family expenses, and basic costs of living. Driving 100 miles to the bookstore, paying $35 for a book, then driving the 100 miles back home again puts a pretty expensive price tag on something one can't eat or wear. Saying it's available, or it's been available for years, doesn't mean people know it's available, doesn't mean they know enough to care if it's available or not, or can afford it even if they would be interested under other circumstances.

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.

If it's important enough to cause angst in members, should they find out via a non-church sponsored venue, then it's in the vested interest of the church to present the information in a manner that neither covers it up nor belittles it. Anything less carried disingenuity to a new low. The truth never hurt anyone. It's the cover-up that hurts.

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.

Then the church has nothing to lose by presenting it to the members via one of the many manuals they publish every year. We study the D&C every four years. If the changes are not discussed, they should be. And if they aren't, then we need to go on a five year rotation, instead of a four year rotation, and include church history as a subject worthy of study.

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

Protestants are the least of the problems. It's the tithe-paying active members who are the ones our leaders are afraid of.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

A friend of mine used to claim that a church bookstore contained more than enough information for anyone to apostacize. The problem is, many church members are unable to afford the luxury of buying books at the bookstore, after paying their required tithes and offerings, family expenses, and basic costs of living.

Of course, you jest...

Driving 100 miles to the bookstore, paying $35 for a book, then driving the 100 miles back home again puts a pretty expensive price tag on something one can't eat or wear.

Where do you live, at the base of Mr. Everest?

Saying it's available, or it's been available for years, doesn't mean people know it's available, doesn't mean they know enough to care if it's available or not, or can afford it even if they would be interested under other circumstances.

In which case, you have both acknowledged my main point here, and pointed out a rather pedestrian observation: that many people don't avail themselves of the rescources that exist, for which they are soley responsible.

Quote:
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.



If it's important enough to cause angst in members, should they find out via a non-church sponsored venue, then it's in the vested interest of the church to present the information in a manner that neither covers it up nor belittles it. Anything less carried disingenuity to a new low. The truth never hurt anyone. It's the cover-up that hurts.

The church covers up, or attempts to cover up nothing, as my above examples make clear. In any event, the church's mission is to teach the gospel, not to bend over and grab its collective ankles in an attempt to answer every criticism, including the most tendentious and trivial. Indeed, attempting to answer those kinds of criticisms would only lend an air of legitimacy to things that would otherwise be little more than banal.

Quote:
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.



Then the church has nothing to lose by presenting it to the members via one of the many manuals they publish every year. We study the D&C every four years. If the changes are not discussed, they should be. And if they aren't, then we need to go on a five year rotation, instead of a four year rotation, and include church history as a subject worthy of study.

We are to study the core, foundational doctrines of the gospel in our gospel docrtine classes with little divergence into peripheral or complicated territory, and for very good reasons. Sunday School and our other sabbath classes are not academic exercises, nor are they forums for open ended forays into what are complex historical or textual issues. They are about being spiritually fed and nourished together as Saints for an hour or so by the fundamental truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One may mention, and I have mentioned as a gospel doctrine teacher, some of these issues in passing, but the idea of incorporating such issue into the gospel doctrine cirruculum is subversive (and that's the idea, is it not Harmony?) of its primary mission, which is the teaching of the core truths of the gospel led by the spirit.

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



Protestants are the least of the problems. It's the tithe-paying active members who are the ones our leaders are afraid of.

You see Harmony (and you didn't answer the point made), you are a Mormon only in a technical sense. KInd of like the American Godzilla, just a bare shadow of the real Big G.


Loran

[_Coggins7]

I feel a song coming on...

[_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.

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.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I don't mind a bit admitting it.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Who is at fault here for not possessing this knowledge when you speak to them, the Church or the non-reader?
P

Good question. I wasn't a great reader of church materials myself, and when I did read it was with the intent of strengthening my beliefs, not finding issues, and I was totally oblivious to issues that would be obvious to someone reading objectively. As far as the "readers" of the church go though, the ones who really dig for information past what's in the manuals, the church probably loses a great many of them.

[_rcrocket]

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.

We read how an Ethopian eunuch in a chariot was reading Isaiah, and he asked Philip about the man Isaiah was talking about. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter" etc. Acts 8:32. Philip then "preached unto him Jesus" sitting in the chariot and the Ethiopian was immediately baptized.

But I doubt that it was disclosed to the Ethiopian that in Jesus' day, non-Israelites were descibed by Jesus as "dogs" and not worthy of the Gospel and its blessings without begging for it. Matt 15:21-28. Or how about the doctrine that men with their units cut off could not join the congregation. Deut 23:1 ("He that . . . hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.")

Nor, I doubt, did Philip disclose to the Ethiopian the grossly offensive doctrine ("From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" John 6:66) that one would have to drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh.

That Philip was quite a character for baptising the Ethiopian on the spot after a few minutes of feeling the Spirit in the chariot.

P

[Dr. Sunstoned]

We read how an Ethopian eunuch in a chariot was reading Isaiah, and he asked Philip about the man Isaiah was talking about. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter" etc. Acts 8:32. Philip then "preached unto him Jesus" sitting in the chariot and the Ethiopian was immediately baptized.

But I doubt that it was disclosed to the Ethiopian that in Jesus' day, non-Israelites were descibed by Jesus as "dogs" and not worthy of the Gospel and its blessings without begging for it. Matt 15:21-28. Or how about the doctrine that men with their units cut off could not join the congregation. Deut 23:1 ("He that . . . hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.")

Nor, I doubt, did Philip disclose to the Ethiopian the grossly offensive doctrine ("From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" John 6:66) that one would have to drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh.

That Philip was quite a character for baptising the Ethiopian on the spot after a few minutes of feeling the Spirit in the chariot.

I await with a straight face the response to this vignette, something that, by the way, could be extended to a number of other aras in the New Testament. One wonders if Barnabas or Clement made sure the people they preached to and baptized were aware of each and every Jewish, Gnostic, or Hellenistic criticism of the church, on either theological or historic grounds (including the clear and unambiguous evidence, backed up by documented, eyewitness testimony and impeccible research that the founder of this new cult was indeed not only a wino and possessed of the Devil (or suffering from an organic mental illness), but was the bastard offspring of some tramp named Mary and her disgraceful husband, who instead of putting this loose woman away as he should have, eloped with her to parts unknown, only to have the kid turn up some years later claiming to be the Son of God. And this kid was from Nazareth for crying out loud!).

Then of course you have these men who claim to be his apostles and to be bearers of the true gospel. One guy actually held the cloaks of members of a Jewish mob who physically killed another apostle during a riot. This same guy, Paul, actuaully had it out fact to face with another "apostle" at a meeting between the leaders of the church and apparantly, never spoke to him again. Yeah, great guys, and they're supposed to be all about love and unity. The guy that Paul dressed down was Peter, and was supposed to be the chief apostle of the group. But this guy lied through his teeth not once, but three times as to his association with Jesus to save his own backside, not to mention being unable to so much as stay awake and give some moral support to his master when he was, according to these very apostles, physically sweating blood while taking on the sins of all mankind.

But the real problem is with all the inconsistencies and contradictions we find in the four gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. These guys really should have gotten together and gotten their stories straight before they circulated this stuff around to a gullible public. Then you have people like Jude pulling stuff out of old Jewish texts like 1 Enoch and calling it scripture. Please. Did Paul only see the angel, or his companions as well?

Then you have one guy, Paul, going on and on about being saved by grace through faith, and another guy in another place and time saying that, no, faith without works is dead and anyone who thinks otherwise is full of it. All the changes in doctrine and policy in this early New Testament chruch really bother me, as do the alterations in scriptural texts (did the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove, or in bodily form like or as a dove?) And why wouldn't this guy Jesus so much as give non-Jews the time of day? Here he says he has a monopoly on truth, but oh, its only for Jews. Ohhh, I see, an old boys club. No Gentiles allowed. Yeah, there goes the neighborhood. Clear racism, which the apostles continued in until one of them, that prevaricator Peter, conveinently had a "revelation" about some animals caught in a net, and then goes running around saying "yeah, well NOW we need to go and teach the gospel to non-Jews because we've been getting some bad PR". Not to mention the outright sexism. Woman should keep quiet in church and listen. Woman should be seen and not heard. Yet in the Greek mystery religions, woman have positions of authority, and are even high priestesses and officiate in serious ritual ceremonie. Female gods are even worshipped. This cult called Christianity is clearly square, unhip, exclusive, divisine and highly suspect as to its founding texts and origin stories (this chick Mary actually thought she could cover up her immoral conduct by claiming that an angel had appeared to her and told her that she was to be the vessel through which the Son of God would be born. Not to mention the fact that there is not the slightest shred of empirical evidence to support such a claim, people who knew Jesus personally were quite clear that he spent most of his time hanging around with tax collecters and sinners like his mother, and getting buzzed).

And of course, given what we know about the attitudes of the Jewish males in the hierarchy, its no suprise that the "scripture" they wrote encouraged slaves to be good and faithful slaves to their masters and not rock any cultural or political boats. You had a Prieshood ban on non-Jews, woman, and not only this but a freedom ban on slaves and bond servants. Clearly, for from being the true gospel, the church these guys started and the scriptures they wrote were nothing more than artifacts of the oppressive racist, sexist, and classist culture and politics of the world in which they lived.

If only we had had Signature Books, Dialog, Sunstone, and the Tanners around in the First Century. This whole pathetic fraud could have been nipped in the bud right then and there.

Loran

[_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 not feeling well today.

[_Runtu]

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.

We read how an Ethopian eunuch in a chariot was reading Isaiah, and he asked Philip about the man Isaiah was talking about. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter" etc. Acts 8:32. Philip then "preached unto him Jesus" sitting in the chariot and the Ethiopian was immediately baptized.

But I doubt that it was disclosed to the Ethiopian that in Jesus' day, non-Israelites were descibed by Jesus as "dogs" and not worthy of the Gospel and its blessings without begging for it. Matt 15:21-28. Or how about the doctrine that men with their units cut off could not join the congregation. Deut 23:1 ("He that . . . hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.")

Nor, I doubt, did Philip disclose to the Ethiopian the grossly offensive doctrine ("From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" John 6:66) that one would have to drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh.

That Philip was quite a character for baptising the Ethiopian on the spot after a few minutes of feeling the Spirit in the chariot.

P

I kind of like this example, misplaced as it may be. I recently mentioned my having taught and baptized a black man without ever mentioning the priesthood ban, and I felt bad about it. Perhaps you wouldn't have.

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. Where the vignette breaks down is that much of the church's history and origins are not discussed in the scriptures, nor in any church publications. One has to do one's own research to find such information (and until the internet arrived, that was difficult).

So, for me, it's not that the information was withheld in this split-second conversion but rather that unlike many Latter-day Saints, the Ethiopian would have learned about the doctrine (and even been encouraged to learn about the doctrine), whereas Latter-day Saints, if they followed the counsel to stick to the scriptures and church publications, would not have learned about their history.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Reference to this claim?

Here is the original.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn 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 shewn 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.

If you check your current Book of Mormon you'll find the testimony now says "translator".

Even more interesting than that is to read the individual stories of the eight witnesses of the when and how they "saw" the plates.


Phaedrus