The January 2013 Ensign magazine seems to reflect a new effort toward transparency in the Mormon Church. In an article by LDS historian Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,” the author discloses “Many Revelations Were Later Revised by Joseph Smith through Inspiration”:
“Over the course of the first five years of the Church, Joseph and others under his direction made changes and corrections to some of the early revelation texts in an attempt to more closely portray the intent of the revelation. Other times, especially as the revelations were being prepared for publication, Joseph was inspired to update the contents of the revelations to reflect a growing Church structure and new circumstances…
“Some of the needed changes stemmed from errors made by scribes as Joseph dictated the revelation to them. Other changes were made as later revelations incorporated more teachings that had not been a part of the initial revelation.” (Ensign, January 2013, 46)
Dr. Dirkmaat uses D&C 27 (found in the 1833 Book of Commandments as chapter 28) as one example of a revelation later revised by Joseph Smith. He notes that Joseph Smith’s history says “the first part of the revelation was written down in August 1830 and ‘the remainder in the September following.’” The section 27 heading included in the current Doctrine and Covenants says the same thing. Dr. Dirkmaat adds,
“In the earliest manuscripts, only verses 1–5 and parts of 15 and 18 were included, but as the text of the revelation was being prepared for publication in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the second portion of the revelation was added, nearly tripling the size of the revelation.”
The impression given to Ensign readers is that Joseph Smith received this revelation in two parts over the course of a few weeks’ time: a third of it in August 1830 and two-thirds more in September 1830; then he joined the two parts together for publication in 1835. But history doesn’t bear this out.
In The Joseph Smith Revelations Text & Commentary, author H. Michael Marquardt notes that the added text found in the current verse 11 (i.e., “Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days”) indicates a later textual addition. He cites a January 1st, 1834 letter written by Apostle and “Second Elder of the Church” Oliver Cowdery. In this letter Mr. Cowdery wrote, “Since I came down I have been informed from a proper source that the Angel Michael is no less than our father Adam, and Gabriel is Noah.” According to Mr. Marquardt, “This idea was not known to Cowdery until the end of 1833.” After citing a few more anachronistic additions to Book of Commandments (BOC) 28, Mr. Marquardt concludes, “It appears that all the added material dates from after the time when the commandment was received. The additions are too developed, the product of a later stage of theological evolution.” (74-75)
These later theological thoughts have been placed into the previously existing text of the original revelation. Though readers of the Ensign article might assume that the newer two-thirds of D&C 27 were added at the end of the original –- a different text received at a different time and appended to the first revelation — this is not the case. Joseph Smith’s revisions to the revelation were not appended onto the end of the existing text, but were inserted into the middles of two complete verses from the original revelation (i.e., vv. 6 and 7 in BOC 28). These verses were split apart by new, major blocks of text that were inserted in the middle of what, up until that point, had been understood to be a full and complete revelation (to illustrate, compare BOC 28:6 with D&C 27:5-14: “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with [insert 322 new words] all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world”). Thus, Joseph Smith’s scripture resembles the drafting of a term paper – a work in progress – rather than a direct revelation from God. Indeed, according to the Ensign article, “Joseph Smith saw the revelations as living and subject to change as the Lord revealed more of His will.”
An important aspect regarding the revised revelation that is missing from the Ensign article is the significance of the added content. Of course, since Mormons consider these revelations to be scripture, any and all content is significant. Even so, the 1835 additions to this revelation (D&C 27) speak of the alleged restoration of the Aaronic priesthood at the hands of John the Baptist (v. 8) and the Melchizedek priesthood/apostleship bestowed on Smith and Cowdery shortly thereafter via a visitation by Peter, James and John (vv. 12-13). As H. Michael Marquardt notes, “This 1835 addition is the earliest known record of Christ’s apostles being sent to visit Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery” (80). Author Grant Palmer concurs: “Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s” (An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 223-224).
The point of all this is that the basis for the authority of the Mormon Church, the restoration of the priesthood, appears to have been a bit of an afterthought. Claims of the restoration and bestowal of this divine authority did not exist in the first years of the Mormon Church. Even the scriptural references to this foundational power have been slipped in under a falsified (or at least misleading) early date.
It’s good that the Mormon Church is making an effort at historical transparency, but it still has a long way to go.
—
See the changes made to Book of Commandments Chapter 28, courtesy of Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
—
Just a thought here.
First, I understand the point of this article, and it makes a very logical case. For this I compliment the writer.
However, the case only stands if one assumes that Joseph Smith was not a prophet who received revelation from God. This is the thing; one who sees him as a prophet has no trouble seeing the workings of God in the development of doctrine, and thus in its recording.
As to accounts of the ordinations, there were accounts before the mid 1830’s, but they did not identify the angels that appeared. So, while it may be true that the names of the angels were not given until this time (which I have no problem with) the events were recorded.
Shem,
Please provide the evidence of these accounts that were written before the mid 1830’s. I would be interested in reading them and seeing where the accounts were written.
“This is the thing; one who sees him as a prophet has no trouble seeing the workings of God in the development of doctrine, and thus in its recording.”
Blind belief in a prophet can be a dangerous thing. Look at Jim Jones and David Koresh. I’m sure their followers truly believed in them and saw the “workings of God” and all that. Jesus has warned us to beware of false prophets and we are to test everything against the Word of God and if it is found lacking it is to be rejected. I find the changes in revelations given by Joseph Smith to be lacking.
Shematwater,
This doesn’t match my impression as to the revelatory procress. Its been a long time since I attended any church services, but my impression was that the D&C was written almost immediately after revelations or visions had occured. Compliation of materials deemed to be scripture is fine, as most religions in the world gathered together various works at a later date. Certainly they were not written as a completed work. For instance the original document that became D&C 27 probably did not say ‘D&C 27’ on top. But later editing and additions to the document itself, I was never aware of, nor did I ever have the impression that was part of the process.
On a side note, the title ‘Ancient of Days’ I thought that was a title for god in the OT, not adam. In addition, I always wondered why the Church was so adamant in using bread and water for the sacrament, as this particular chapter says that it does not matter. In theory the church could have used tea and biscotti for church services until the arrival of D&C 89. And I am not sure when that word of wisdom became a binding principle, but I understand that it would be awhile until it was a requirement.
The other thing I always wondered about was the belief in continuing revelation. I never understood what that was supposed to really mean. Its been a long time since anything has been added to the D&C. OD 1 and OD 2 perhaps might be revelations, but upon careful examination they appear to be policy changes more than revelation. Some members say that conference talks given by church leaders constitute revelation. The problem that I have with that is that sermons given by various church leaders which compose the journal of discourses are often discounted as being an accurate source for doctrinal insight, as they have not been affirmed as scripture or revelation for the church. As far as its ability to be binding doctrinally or in practice. So I would be intrested in what input you might offer. Thank you
Question for Mormon Coffee…what is the process by which the Christian cannon became the Bible?
LDS Historian Gerrit Dirkmaat says that Joseph Smith was inspired to , ” update the contents ”
of previous written revelations , that he revised many revelations ? That raises some serious
questions . It appears that when these revelations were first printed J.S. and the church body
received them as being printed correctly , at least according to David Whitmer’s later testimony.
Bruce McConkie stated concerning the D&C that ” most of these sections came to Joseph Smith
by direct revelation , the recorded words being those of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.”
[ Mormon Doctrine p 206]. Maybe this is why for a long time some prominent Mormons said
that no revisions occurred as this would be like tampering with God’s Word : Apostle John
Widstoe stated that the revelations, ” have remained unchanged , there is no tampering with
God’s Word .” [ J.S. –Seeker after Truth p. 119 ] . Even Hugh B. Brown who served as a member
of the First Presidency under pres. David O. McKay claimed that : ” None of the early
revelations of the church have been revised , and the D&C stands as printed …” [ Letter to
Morris L. Reynolds 5-13-1966, copy of in ,The Case Against Mormonism , v.1 p 133].
This type of behavior coming from those claiming to be officials in Jesus’ Church is troubling .
Furthermore, we see where various Mormon officials have said that they’ve stowed away
many written revelations which church members supposedly are’nt ready for . No telling
what’s in the First Presidency’s vault or sequestered away in the Church archives . Faithful
church members should ask for answers so I have to agree with Sharon’s comment in the last
sentence of her article above. The Mormon people could simply avoid situations like this
by refusing to give the kind of allegiance they do to their prophets /apostles , these men
though polite and well dressed , are not necessary to follow in order to gain a right relationship
with God unto eternal life .
Mike
There has been no change to the Revelations since the time of Joseph Smith. That is what these men mean, and that is perfectly accurate.
Kate
Blind faith is silly. I mean it was silly of the ancient Israelites to have blind faith in Moses as a prophet, wasn’t it? Oh, and what of those who had blind faith in Elijah, or those who had blind faith in Peter?
Blind faith is frequently what is required by God, and should not be cast aside. Abraham showed blind faith in God in obeying the command to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. The widow showed blind faith in Elijah when she made him the little cake. Aaron showed blind faith in Moses when he joined him in speaking with Pharaoh.
In truth, I would argue that if faith is not blind it is not truly faith, for we receive no witness until after our faith, and then faith is no longer needed, for we now know.
I do not think that God ever intended the record of his words to be the standard by which all things are measured. I do not see this as being taught in the Bible. The standard is not the written record, but God himself, as he reveals himself and his word to the individual. Honestly, anyone who holds any scriptures as the final standard of truth is lacking.
Enki
I understand your concerns and questions, which I will not attempt to answer in full here. If you want to know how to evaluate a source for doctrine you may want to visit my blog here http://shematwater.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/authoritative-church-doctrine/, as I attempt to address this. I would love to discuss this with you more fully on that site.
As to the revelatory process, this is how I understand it, and why I have no problem with what Joseph Smith did.
Joseph Smith did not receive all things at once, but received them line upon line, which is the way that God reveals truth. Thus, speaking of section 27, I have no problem with him recording the first part, and then, as a later time recording the rest.
So, the Book of Commandments states “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world” Into this Joseph Smith inserts a list of prominent people who the Father hath given Christ out of the world. What is wrong with this? Now, at the end Joseph Smith attaches the discourse of the Whole Armor or God, similar to that recorded by Paul. Again, I see no problem with this, as the original ended with the admonition to “gird up your loins, and be faithful until I come. Amen. So, Joseph Smith is merely adding in an explanation of how gird up your loins and be faithful.
The thing is that nothing from the original is contradicted. It is expounded on, but not changed. Not only that, but the added portions fit so well with what was in the Book of Commandments that it seems to me just good writing on the part of God.
Now, I will agree that for the most part the revelations that Joseph Smith received were written down as they were received, but this was not always the case. Section 132 was received by Joseph Smith in the early 1830’s, most likely 1831. Yet it was not written down until 1843. There were also several other revelations that were never written down, but that we know were given from the testimony of those present at the time. Several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants consist of multiple revelations given to Joseph Smith that were put together, and some are only parts of revelations, with the entirety of them being lost, or recorded in other places.
God reveals what he reveals as he sees fit, and he commands his servants to preserve those revelations as he sees fit. Who are we to question this?
The title “Ancient of Days” is used only once, and that is in Daniel. It is commonly thought of to be God by the rest of Christianity, but Daniel was in fact speaking of Adam.
As to the Sacrament, during World War II the German saints used potato peelings and water. In some parts of the world, where the water is dangerous to drink, they use other drinks. There is no set rule that mandates bread and water. However, we are advised to use for their simplicity. It is something that most people can get a hold of easily, and does not carry any pretensions with it. Necessity may force us to use other substances, but even then we chose the simplest things we can.
On a final note, continuing revelation is just that. It does not, however, mandate the revelation of new doctrine. The declarations are declaring a change in policy, but that change was brought about through revelation. The organization of the church if somewhat fluid in its auxiliary branches, which came through revelation. There was a time when the missionary age for men was 20 years, and they only served 18 months. Through successive revelation the age has been reduced to 18 years, and the time increased to 24 months, with the possibility of a sixth month extension. Family Home Evening was instituted through revelation. Through revelation the Church joined the Boy Scouts. Through Revelation the welfare system was created. Through revelation the manuals for lessons in Sunday school were unified. Several years ago President Hinkley changed the area presidents into quorums of Seventy (making something like eight quorums in total), which was done be revelation.
Every time there is a policy change in the church, whether adding, ending, or altering policy it has all come through revelation. This is what continuing revelation means. It can be the revealing of new truths; but it is more frequently the guiding and regulating of the affairs of God’s Kingdom on Earth. Nothing happens in the body of the church that is not revealed by God as being approved of him. Without this continual revelation from on high the church could not claim to have Christ as its head, but would be lead by men, instituting and changing policy according to their own thoughts and desires (which is what we see throughout most of Christian history).
Shemawater, Thats curious, all of those things were done by revelation? The length of missionary service, joining the boy scouts? To what detail does this go? For instance I repaired vacuums and provided service for an LDS temple. The temple manager brought in the vaccuum for repair. He still had on some temple clothing of some type, I dont know if its allowed outside, but I thought that was unusual. Would revelation determine what brand of vacuum to use? This is a bit ‘out there’ of a question I know. But if its done to determine length of missionary service, association with other organizations, how lessons manuals are composed…is it that far out of a question? Exact organization of church structure etc… just curious.
These revelations are they ‘impressions’ or ‘inspiration’ or hunches? Or did jesus and the father appear to someone and say, join the boy scouts, its a great organization? To be fair I heard a story by an evangelical christian how he used the bible to determine if he should buy a particular home. he said a prayer and opened the Bible and placed his finger someplace on a page. It said something about ‘…and such it is your lot…” (lot as in a plot of land) So, I guess christians of all types could use revelation to determine a lot of different things.
Shem,
Let me play your game, I didn’t say anything about faith. I said “blind belief.”
You said:
“Honestly, anyone who holds any scriptures as the final standard of truth is lacking.”
Of course you would say this as a Mormon. Mormonism teaches that the Bible isn’t trustworthy. You are to trust your own feelings. Burning in the bosom. Let me show you what the Bible says…
1 John 4:1 4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 Timothy 3:16, All scripture is God breathed
Psalm 33:11The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations.
So all scripture is God breathed and the counsel of the Lord stands forever. I am also to test the spirit by which someone is teaching because many false prophets have gone out into the world. What am I to test these spirits against? I believe I am to test everything against the God breathed Word (Bible)
“Please provide the evidence of these accounts that were written before the mid 1830′s. I would be interested in reading them and seeing where the accounts were written.”
I see you completely ignored my request that you provide evidence. You also didn’t supply any evidence in your reply to Enki. All I see are your opinions.
This all points to Joseph Smith being a flim flam sham. He made it up as he went and adjusted on the fly. This is not the character of a prophet. Its that claim to divine authorship of the revelations that creates the biggest chasm between truth and Joseph Smith. God does not issue retractions or revise His Word because He got it wrong. A god that would do so is such a weak god he is not be worthy of our worship; and if you look at how Joseph Smith descibes his god, you realize its true. Joseph Smith’s god is more like a Superman hero, something out of Marvel comics. As the Hulk said in the Avengers – puny god. The Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit bears no resemblance to Joseph Smiths god (who can’t even figure out what he wants to say!)
Shem, I understand you. You need no proof other than your internal good vibes. Blind faith is where its at for you. So, assuming your worldview is true (which I don’t), I have put my blind faith in a different religion that gives me good vibes. You’ve got nothing to stand on other than feelings. Ultimately, you worship emotions. Oh, and you worship your hands with which you do your good works.
Hey all,
I’ve thought about the changes to the revelations in the DnC for some time now and this is some of what I’ve got.
1) If the revelations were good enough to publish in the Book of Commandments, shouldn’t they have been good enough for the new edition – the DnC?
2) Even if new revelation was to be added, why not just as a new revelation? Why overlay a previous revelation? LDS are all about “continuing revelation” and “line upon line” so having a separate revelation should be kosher. However, given all the outcry over “things lost” and “changed” or “corrupted”, LDS should be consistent, JS should have been consistent and not changed anything but just given a new revelation to build upon, not manipulate, the previous line of revelation. What could explain such inconsistency?…
3) Early on in my analysis I realized that talking about changes (despite the unforgivable inconsistency described above) or additions would not be fruitful with LDS; it is too easily countered, at least in their minds. So I realized that it is the third type of change that might have the most potential to be effective, not so easily explained away. Deletions of parts, large parts, of the original revelations is inexcusable. First, LDS outcry against the Bible’s losses deny this option. Second, that these changes were and never have been noted is inexcusable (for all changes not just the deletions). Third, and most important,…
There is never a righteous reason to erase the words of God!
Two things: one for the LDS and one for the moderators/posters:
1) to the LDS and of course others are welcome too. I have been formulating what I am currently calling “The Standard Proofs” that correlate with the Standard Works of Mormonism. Avoiding the issue of “that’s not official doctrine” by sticking to the Standard Works, and by keeping to a very simple and straightforward issue with each work which avoids issues of ignorance on the part of the hearer and the complications of academic labyrinthine minutia, I believe these 4 (reasonable) proofs can be immediately understood, discussed, and remembered easily for future ruminating or easy confirmation if needed. So I welcome your best shots against the last point above for the DnC:
– between the Book of Commandments and the DnC not only were there changes to the words of God, revelations, but a significant amount of God’s words were deleted.
– there is never a good reason to delete the words of God.(which we only know about because of barely surviving extant copies of the BoC)
– thus, the deletions to the revelations are not of God.
I already know of some responses, and have answers, so please give this your best shots.
Admins and posters:
Someone should post about 30 Rockcenter’s episode on Scientology! It aired 1-17-13 on NBC.
1) the people they interview say things that LDS say about their own religion! [even the violence and obvious separation and imprisonment have their psychological equivalents in Mormonism, if not exact equivalents in Mormonism’s history]
2) the ways the Scientology leadership responds to these accusers are exactly the same as those of LDS!
3) Rockcenter’s treatment of Scientology is completely different from their treatment of Mormonism! Right off the bat, they ONLY spoke to ex-sci’s and their “anti” information! The Mormonism episode barely had an ex, let alone anti information! Must have been that election inbetween, huh? How different would Rockcenter’s in-depth investigation of Mormonism be now, after the election?
Finally, I have one other observation that I think could be very effective, so please email me, and give me a few days to respond with that before you decide whether or not to post about this. You will see what I mean about the equivalent or verbatim statements in just the first minutes of the interviews. It is VERY IMPRESSIVE! Please check it out!
Note: Sharon or your system has my e-adress.
No there weren’t. And as many have asked here, where is your proof. On the other hand, there is ample proof from those that were there, that this is a lie. Dan Vogel has adequately presented the facts to prove that there is no evidence of angelic ordinations to the priesthood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP_nMHqILyE
This a flat out LIE. W.W. Phelps recorded a totally different “revelation” in 1831, which reads,
Is this your only example? If so, it’s a bad one. Perhaps you should study up on all of the changes Smith made, and how they included DELETIONS as well as ADDITIONS:
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p157.gif
There has been no change to the Revelations since the time of Joseph Smith. That is what these men mean, and that is perfectly accurate.
You certainly don’t understand how the Doctrine and Covenants was compiled, and how for example Orson Pratt changed Smith’s original words. Here is one example:
This changes the entire meaning of what the Holy ‘Ghost’ does. In Mormonism today, they say the Holy “Ghost” can stay with a person and they can have the “constant companion” of the Holy “Ghost”. Smith did not say this he said a man may receive the gift of the Holy “Ghost” and it MAY descend upon him but it will not tarry with him. Orson Pratt EXCLUDED crucial remarks from Smith’s Diary.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with someone in a cult. Evidence doesn’t matter because they have some sort of wild explanation that only a cult member will accept.
The Church Fathers went through this very thing with the heretics.
It’s the Vulcan Mind Meld, serendipity, flight of fancy, twisted thinking and a mental block all rolled into one.
Now for someone who is starting to see the cracks and understand that something is radically wrong, the information presented here will make an impact.
For example, we have a number of former Mormons who post here. They get it. It’s as clear as a bell. Cult members are in a brain lock.
But we have confidence that the questioning Mormons, those who are at the contemplative stage of their search, who come here looking for information, they’ll get it.
spartacus,
Actions of scientology…what does that have to do with the LDS/Biblical christianity discussion? I have distracted with off topic things, but I see it now how its not what people come here for. I have investigated a scientology demonstration, that ‘clearing’ machine, whatever its called. Its nothing that I ever fell for.
Falcon,
“This,…is why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with someone in a cult. Evidence doesn’t matter because they have some sort of wild explanation that only a cult member will accept.”
Is there any way to objectively classify what exactly is a cult?
“1.A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2.A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.”
Either definition could apply to Mormonism, but also the organization called, “Mormon Coffee”. Some people do reguard def. 1&2 to Mormons, but that could apply to alot of other religions.
Enki,
Well this is pretty easy. There are all kinds of sources to answer your question. How would you like to approach the topic. Do you want to look at it in terms of beliefs or from sociology? Let’s try the latter.
1] Authoritarian Leadership
Authoritarianism involves the acceptance of an authority figure who exercises excessive control on cult members. As prophet or founder, this leader’s word is considered ultimate and final. Often this authoritarianism involves legalistic submission to the rules and regulations of the group as established by the cult leader. Cult members are fully expected to submit, even if they do not agree with the requirements. Unquestioning obedience is compulsory.
[2] Exclusivism
Cults often believe that they alone have the truth. The cult views itself as the single means of salvation on earth; to leave the group is to endanger one’s soul.
[3] Opposition to Independent Thinking
Some cultic groups discourage members from thinking independently. The “thinking,” as it were, has already been done for them by the cult leadership; the proper response is merely to submit.
[4] Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”
It is not uncommon in cults that people are urged to remain faithful to avoid being “disfellowshiped,” or disbarred, from the group.
5] Threats of Satanic Attack
Finally, some cults use fear and intimidation to keep members in line. Members may be told that something awful will happen to them should they choose to leave the group. Such fear tactics are designed to induce submission. Even when people do muster enough courage to leave the group, they may endure psychological consequences and emotional baggage for years to come.
Enki,
Do any of these characteristics apply to Mormonism?
http://andynaselli.com/sociological-characteristics-of-cults
Enki,
So I presented some information from a sociological point of view, but what about “belief”?
“…….a cult is a religious group which differs significantly from the churches that are considered as the normative expressions of religion in our culture. A cult often has – or had in the past – a charismatic leader who is or was strong authority for the believers and has or had a strong influence on the religious teachings of that group. Cults often have very strong doctrines that make it very difficult for a cult member to leave.”
“All cults have in common that they deny the fact that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Some are very explicit about this and are thus easy to recognize – they are what we call “Non-Christian Cults”. Others seem to believe almost the same as Christianity does but if we look closer we see that their teachings are in fact quite different from what we know as the true word of God – that’s why we call them “Pseudo-Christian Cults”. ”
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/Christian/Cults/all.html
Enki,
Does this sound like Mormonism?
Let’s take the subject of this article. Mormons have to bend, twist, shape and suspend credulity in order to reconcile their false revelations and false prophet(s). Given what we read in the article, anyone can be a prophet and any prophecy is acceptable in Mormonism. The key is that it came from a leader therefore it must be true.
This gets us to “cult” thinking. A rational person wouldn’t accept this sort of flim-flam game. They would see through it and reject it. Not a true believing cultist. There is always a way around these embarrassing cut and paste prophecies.
This is really a form of spiritual abuse. Often times a family that has sexual abuse going on inside the unit will deny that the perpetrator is actually abusing the victim. The truth is too painful. It’s easier to come up with all sorts of excuses and reasons why what is obvious isn’t actually occurring.
The same dynamics occur in religious cults like Mormonism.
Falcon,
Of course many of these apply. Certain periods of the LDS church were very, very cultic. Maybe its become less so than in other periods, but apparently thats something that is common. There is a part you excluded on the bottom of the link you provided. “Sadly, some Christian groups share these characteristics to some degree.” I didn’t say that, the source you provided.
Either way this doesn’t really contribute to the discussion. For some church members these may be accepted as part of something necessary, I think it gives members a sense of something certain, a predictable environment that shelters them from those that don’t share the same belief.
There is also a phenomena of ‘confirmation bias’ “a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
That can be very difficult to break through. One of the confirmation biases of mormons is that they are inherently biased against. Labling them as a cult potentially feeds into this confirmation bias…I just knew it… I wont say your perception is wrong, its just that it might be perceived in another way than what you indend.
Enki,
You asked for some definitive information and I provided it. If you really wanted to get into the cultic nature of Mormonism, especially at its founding, we could go there also.
Mormons can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that a guy calling himself a prophet who was into what could be charitably called “folk magic” is not a guy that should be followed. Even when these obvious things are pointed out, Mormons excuse the practices, symbols and all of the hocus pocus.
So we have the sociological definition of a cult that can be applied to Mormonism. We have the “beliefs” of Mormonism that meet the definition of a cult. Finally we have the folk magic practices of the founder and his early followers that were cultic in nature.
Now add to all of that how the prophecies of Mormon prophets had to be “adjusted” and I think we have enough information to confirm Mormonism as a cult. If we wanted to, we could add in the polygamous Mormon groups that are certainly cults. Mormonism breeds cults; cultic thinking, beliefs, and practices.
Pick your poison as to which is the worst. I think Mike R. would say it’s the false prophets and leaders with their false revelations that make Mormonism a cult. I’d probably tend towards the founding of Mormonism and all of the false spirits that guided and continues to guide Mormonism. None-the-less, in the end as long as Mormons cling to their false religion, they are spiritually lost.
Shem, your reply to me was , ” There has been no change to the revelations since the time of
Joseph Smith , that is what those men meant, and that is perfectly accurate.” I think it is very
important to be accurate and so I took what you said and compared it with the information that
I was able to read. Now according to Mormon Melvin Petersen’s Master Thesis written at BYU
p. 121 , he sites the 1845 edition of the D&C and found 36 changes from the Book of
Commandments where they were originally printed . The 1852 ed was slightly better with only
11 changes. Now there might be a tendency to argue that these are significantly less than the
many hundreds of changes in the 1835 ed. , however it seems clear that to say ” There has been
no changes to the revelations since the time of Joseph Smith” , is not an accurate statement if
taken at face value .
As I mentioned in my post there were prominent Mormons who denied that any revisions were
made , and yet now the Mormon historian Sharon sites above admits the early revelations were
revised . This issue is disturbing because the Mormon people have been taught , or at least led to
believe , that the revelations in the Book of Commandments (BofC) came by direct revelation,
therefore a “revising ” of them , especially the DISCARDING of hundreds of words( and whole
verses) when reprinted in the D&C two years later, would cause many to think their leaders
were being led by the “arm of flesh” , not the Holy Ghost. Indeed , there were members then
that were disturbed by this behavior , and even many years later Apostle John Widstoe
felt the need to remind LDS there has never been any , ” tampering with God’s word.”
This issue with the D&C is only part of a bigger picture , as the PGP has undergone massive
revising ( comparing the original 1851 ed with the 1989 ed ) , as well . Church leaders have
even condoned deleting certain references to various early Mormon leaders and their
drinking and tobacco use when reprinted in the History of the Church . Apparently this type
of lifestyle was not what they desired the public to know about their past leaders etc.
Then we also can factor in how Church leaders have denied access to what could very well be
important documents about their scriptures , locked up and away from the public’s view . This
all tells me that this Church has morphed into a powerful corporation whose leaders have
created a structure far from not only what we see in the N.T. but also from what they used
to be in the few years after starting the church ( 1830) . From not fully disclosing where tithe
money goes to denying access to historical documents to being less than forthwright in some
items concerning their history , the men at the top of the Mormon church are powerful men who
rank and file church members should dismiss as authorities in their lives . The Mormon people
deserve better . Many are finding what true freedom in Jesus is all about by walking out the
door of their local Ward and walking straight to Him .
When I joined the church in 1975 I blindly trusted men who would NEVER EVER terach me all that I have found and studied since Sep 2011, and when I went to my Bishop, his response to me was the following, ” I cannot allow now or ever small minded questions to lead me astray ” That was a big punch in the gut saying to my inner voice this is wrong. Or when I went to my former stake Prez, who is a Mission Prez, and will be a G.A with a question on how Joseph Smith could ordain Ejiah Abel, his response was ” I dont care about some guy who Joseph Ordained ” Of course Abel was ordained in 1836 and was black, which opened more questions, and Abel is layer to rest in Utah, I have learned by coming here as i do, I keep it simple and focus , simple that Joseph had no vision, focus, on that, because there is so much error, that makes me sick when I hear in my head those great one liners.
The church is perfect , but the people are not.
Or the church is the same wherever you go.
As i have said, those of us who are out, its a great since of peace and joy each day, week, month, of not being on the Mormon treadmill , lets unplug it and take a walk and enjoy other parts of life, Mormon life is a place with no joy, unless you can keep that belt on that treadmill going
Falcon,
I think it will be awhile before the term cult will be defined as any belief that is spiritually lost, As far as what is the possible use. The definition that I found, it just means a group of people with particular belief that is different than everyone else. In the perjorative sense, it can also be used to mean belief of a group which amounts to something sinister and dangerous.
Both definitions could apply to mormons, as many see both. I think it would be interesting to have someone write an article on these dynamics. How is the christian faith different in this regard? What are the means by which christians remain christian? The cultic aspects of mormonism is to regulate behavior, remove individuals that don’t share the same belief and also dont the meet ‘standards’. Has there been an article written that demonstrates the difference between a cult and true methods to achieve this in Christianity?
Enki,
I think the key is the amount of freedom a person has within a religious sect; if we are looking at it from that point of view. I don’t belong to a “church”. Up until about eight months ago I really didn’t even attend a “church” on a regular basis for several years. I felt no compulsion to do so.
I don’t identify with a group, sect, denomination or “church”. I identify with Jesus Christ. Mormons identify with Mormonism; with the system that they believe will make them gods if they follow a prescribed set of beliefs and rituals. Leaving “the church” is a huge deal for Mormons. Everything is wrapped-up in the religious system and its culture and customs. A Mormon, it is believed, can’t get to become a god outside of the system.
However, there are a lot of different sects of Mormonism so I’d be speaking about the Utah sect or the FLDS primarily.
Once the veil of understanding is pulled back and a Mormon sees what a farce it all is, they gain freedom. First of all they gain freedom from the oppressive nature of the Mormon system. Secondly, if they choose to, they gain freedom and salvation through Jesus Christ. When someone comes to Jesus they come on the basis of faith in Him as God incarnate having sacrificed Himself for the sin of mankind.
There is a “church”, but as I explained, it’s not an organization that exercises control over the individual believer. It’s all about Jesus, who He is and what He did for us on the cross. Coming to faith in Him is the way to the Father and eternal life.
What freedom to not have to put up with a cookie cutter religious sect that claims prophets who have to be continually alibied for.
So Ironman,
What are folks like you and Kate and the other former Mormons thought of by the Mormon posters who show-up here? Are you weak, deceived, a libertine who just can’t hack the Mormon life style? I would think that since you are a triathelte, as I once was, personal discipline is not an issue for you.
No I think in those areas of they mind where these Mormons don’t want to go, is that nagging doubt that maybe these prophets, leaders and the system really aren’t as advertised. Just think of your shock when you came to that conclusion and then your anger at having been deceived and betrayed.
The above article points out the degree to which Mormonism has to go to prop up these false prophets. But to a true believer, any explanation will do to keep the fantasy alive.
To any TBM who would really like to examine the changes from the original there are various websites that can prove invaluable to the truth but damaging to their testimony. Remember this little fun-fact, there were followers of Smith during the time of the changes who were so put out by what he had done that they bolted the sect.
Current D&C 8:6: Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron
Compare it to the 1833 Book of Commandments, 7:3: Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod
[I guess the Mormon editors didn’t want people to know that Joseph had the gift of working with the divining rod — you know — the kind that can supposedly discover where water is, etc…so they changed it to “the gift of Aaron”
Do Mormons know what church positions/offices have been added to Doctrine & Covenants after-the-fact that wasn’t in the original Book of Commandments? Go ahead & turn to D&C 42:31,34,71. Did you know there weren’t any counselors, high priests, high council or council even mentioned in the original pre-D&C — which was the Book of Commandments? All those were added well after the fact and weren’t part of the original “revelation.”
D&C 27:5 says: “Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon…
In the original Book of Commandments, this was section 28…and it was only 7 verses long. After the phrase “the hour cometh that I’ll drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth,” the original B of C doesn’t mention Moroni or the Book of Mormon at all! It just wraps up the verse, “and with all tose whom my Father hath given me out of the world” and then jumps to what is now the first part of v. 15. Then it goes on to the next chapter, 29…which is now D&C 29. Why did Smith come back and insert most of D&C 27 & all of D&C 28 — when it wasn’t in the original Book of Commandments?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2258378/posts
Well I guess all of these changes could be apart of continuous revelation right? And these are the people who want to claim that the Bible is corrupted?
What a total scam, sham, flim flam and gross distortion of the truth within their own religious sect.
Well Falcon, the great thing of being free of the Mormon church is you dont care what others think, in that controlling church its about follow the prophet and local leaders, now i know God knows my heart, and my faith is in him and his Son, not men , ever again, end of story.
Its that simple
Ironman,
Of constant interest to me is how some Mormons “get it” and others don’t. Those that do (get it), leave. I think I know why some don’t get it. It’s because they don’t want to. With that as a mind-set, the chances of any honest investigation is about zero.
I’ve read the testimonies and have had correspondence with several former Mormons. I don’t know for sure, but it appears to me that the “formers” have a high level of personal integrity. When they see the inconsistencies, cover-ups, and out right lying, they can’t tolerate it. Mormonism doesn’t work for them anymore. Only belief in the myth can maintain the myth. Once that’s gone, it’s lights out.
I have mentioned that I think it must be most difficult for those Mormons who feel they’ve had real spiritual experiences. It’s hard to square the experiences with the truth. Once they see that the experiences were fueled by their own desires and they understand the role of emotion in the equation, they give themselves permission to doubt (the veracity of the experiences) and leave Mormonism.
Enki,
I was just making a suggestion to the admins. I have tried to email one of them before and find there is a lag (understandable). So I figured that I would sneak it in at the end of a thread-appropriate comment. I state how it connects to Mormonism. I don’t believe this blog requires all topics to apply to both Mormonism and Christianity, but I do have ideas about how it can fit. This is the other thought I alluded to at the end and offer in email form to any admin interested. And I may just send it anyway.
So….LDS and others
No one want to challenge my first “Standard Proof” I have posted here on the Standard Work, the DnC? I would submit to lack of interest, but Grindael brought it up, too. It is more than relevant to the topic. NOT only have there been “changes” or “additions” but there have been “deletions” of “God’s word” in the “revelations.” Do an alt-f search for “spartacus” and you will find my first comment on this thread with a more formal presentation of the argument that the DnC is one (reasonable) proof that all types of Mormonism, including the CoJCoLDS type, are not true.
Again, I request well thought out responses, as I have already imagined and countered some. Also, please no replies that ONLY ask for references. While I am prepared to give references, any of you can search the web for the Book of Commandments and changes and see the, sometimes, extensive deletions. If you want to find it faster, use utlm.org and then confirm through a “neutral” party’s copy of the Book of Commandments and your own DnC. Thank you!
May God bless us all with His Will and Power, in the Name of Jesus, Amen.
spartacus,
I believe it was Joseph Smith’s first big challenge to his power when he did the Book of Commandments to the D&C switcho chango.
For example:
“The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) rejects the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible, preferring to use only the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon as doctrinal standards. The Book of Commandments is accepted as being superior to the Doctrine and Covenants as a compendium of Joseph Smith’s early revelations (due to changes effected in many Doctrine and Covenants sections that had earlier been printed in the Book of Commandments), but is not accorded the same status as the Bible or Book of Mormon.”
“Doctrines of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) are heavily influenced by the writings of David Whitmer, a leading figure of early Mormonism who was expelled from Joseph Smith’s church in 1838. In 1887, Whitmer published a pamphlet deeply critical of Sidney Rigdon and Smith. This pamphlet, entitled An Address to all Believers in Christ, is widely read and promoted among membership of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) today, and is on sale in the lobby of its headquarters building. In it, Whitmer repeatedly claims that Smith had “fallen”—or began to “fall”—from his Divine calling almost as soon as the church was established in 1830, or perhaps even before then. Whitmer’s reasoning includes his charge that Smith was to have “pretended to no other gift” except the translation of the Book of Mormon, and was never to be more than a “first elder” among “fellow elders” in the fledgling church.” (Wiki)
Smith a fallen prophet? Interesting concept, huh? I would say back it up a little and say Smith never was a prophet. That would be more accurate.
Spartacus, you make some interesting points . I always enjoy the insight you provide .
Sorry for the late come-in but I have been busy.
I have a couple of questions –
How many drafts were made by the writers of the original Bible manuscripts?
Did they make any changes to their manuscripts after they were released?
Did anyone else make changes to the manuscripts later?
The fact of the matter is WE DON’T KNOW. No matter what we have right now in the way of Bible manuscripts we do not have the original source manuscripts. What we do know is that ther have been some text inserted into the Bible, which does indicate that somone has made some changes to the manuscripts, but that is all.
But just to let you know of one contorversial section 1 Cor 14:34-35 (KJV). Here we have 2 verses that float in the chapter depending on which version of the Bible you have. Some have it at vv 34-35 while others have it at the end of the chapter. The controversy is that some of the translators/scholars believe that it was inserted by someone and should therefore be left out, while others, because of how far back it can be found in documentation beleive that it was added in the margins as an after thought by Paul himself. or one of his peers. So this indicates a possible change/correction of the manuscript by the author himself within the Bible. Here is a Christian site detailing this point.
http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-corinthians-1434-35
So unless you have a definitive answer as to how we came about with what we have in the Bible now and that there were no revisions made by the original authors, then you, as I, cannot say how scripture and revelation are written for us.
Ralph said:
How many drafts were made by the writers of the original Bible manuscripts?
Did they make any changes to their manuscripts after they were released?
Did anyone else make changes to the manuscripts later?
The fact of the matter is WE DON’T KNOW. No matter what we have right now in the way of Bible manuscripts we do not have the original source manuscripts. What we do know is that ther have been some text inserted into the Bible, which does indicate that somone has made some changes to the manuscripts, but that is all.
Ralph, can you point me to where I can see the original source manuscript for the Book of Mormon, please? Thank you.
Ralph said
How many drafts were made by the writers of the original Bible manuscripts?
Did they make any changes to their manuscripts after they were released?
Did anyone else make changes to the manuscripts later?
The fact of the matter is WE DON’T KNOW. No matter what we have right now in the way of Bible manuscripts we do not have the original source manuscripts. What we do know is that ther have been some text inserted into the Bible, which does indicate that somone has made some changes to the manuscripts, but that is all.
SR said
Well here is the problem for Mormons, We have the dead sea scrolls dating back before the Birth of Jesus, so were talking thousands of years. Just going back to Jesus is two thousand years.
We can compare the dead Sea Scrolls to what we have today, we have less than 100 changes or additions, and we dont have the Original BoM since it supposdly went back to heaven, How Convenient.
Any way, In just a few short years, 200 or less, we have had over 4,ooo changes and some doctrinal and additions to other Mormon scripture. Sadly LDS dont care.
Frank,
Any thoughts on the apparent comfort LDS have with God’s words being deleted? See my first comment.
Also you don’t justify the DnC by imagining possible problems with the Bible. Your example is a possible addition. We have REAL proof of LDS additions, changes, and deletions! I think it is useless to speak about additions or grammar changes with LDS. But what about the deletions in LDS revelations?
This is simply small minded thinking. The fact that texts from the Old and New Testament from the Bible are over 3000 years old and we have them, and that many of them can be verified as coming down to us with very few changes is an incredible miracle. (The Book of Isaiah is a great example of this).
The big difference between the Bible and Smith’s “revelations” is the fact that with the Bible, it took time to get the extant manuscripts so that comparisons can be made. There is no such option with the Book of Mormon. The Mormons on the other hand, are almost devious in the way that they have not footnoted all the changes that Smith made, (with his later “revelations”) and people (to find out the truth about these “revelations”) have to go to a great deal of trouble to learn that many of them were radically changed and tampered with. Modern Bible translations make as much information as is available known in the footnotes. There is no open transparency with the Mormon “scriptures”.
As for the verses in 1 Corinthians, they contradict other parts of the New Testament, and Paul himself, who states that women can pray & even prophecy in church. This sure isn’t keeping silent. Common sense tells us that since the Bible came to us over centuries, and for many of those centuries was in the hands of just a few, there certainly could have been those who wanted to (and did) take advantage of this.
This is a far cry from Smith intentionally changing so called revelations to account for later inventions.
You have all missed the points – The closest copy to the original manuscripts of the Bible we have post-date it by a couple of decades after it was written. How many changes can be made in a couple of decades? According to this OP, quite a number. So my questions were – Do we know if the author made any changes after they wrote it? AND do we know if anyone else made any changes? We do have an answer to this – yes changes were made as there are numerous differences in the manuscripts we have and there are a number of passages that have been added to the Bible with the one I gave as an example shown to be a possible addition by the original author himself.
Also the other point I made was we do not know how many drafts were written before the actual manuscript was sent. So what we have now translated into the Bible may be the fourth or fifth or even the fiftieth draft of the manuscript before the author sent it to its intended recipient.
So unless we were there at the writing of the original manuscript, we cannot truthfully answer these questions and we cannot know how the revelations of the Bible were written down and given to us.
Once we learn something about redaction criticism, this conversation become silly.
Ralph, I agree with your statement here: So unless we were there at the writing of the original manuscript, we cannot truthfully answer these questions and we cannot know how the revelations of the Bible were written down and given to us.
However, let me ask again — where is the original source manuscript to the Book of Mormon?
ALL there is for the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith’s translation. Of an original manuscript that doesn’t exist.
How can you argue against one and not the other?
Redaction THEORY. On the other hand we know that Smith’s redactions, retractions, additions, changing of history, ect. is FACT.
Enki
If God so chose he could, through revelation, instruct people on which brand of vacuum to use. Yes. Does he do that every time, or even frequently? Probably not. However, the need to clean the temple, and the manner in which it is done is probably done through revelation. So the need to repair the vacuum, though not a direct revelation, can be said to be the result of revelation.
As to how the revelations are given, that is not really for me to say. I was not present at the time, and thus can give no answer. However, I think that the scriptures give a general idea.
Doctrine and Covenants 9: 8-9
“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong…”
I think this gives the basic mode of all revelation. We must first have the idea, and then we must ask God if the idea is right. Then, through revelation he will tell us. He may tell us through feelings, through voices, through visitation, or through visions and dreams. But he generally doesn’t tell anything until asked.
Oh, and I would like to point out that all of Falcon’s explanations as to what a cult is also perfectly describe the early Christian movement at the time of Christ and the Apostles. I had a religion professor who said it beautifully. The difference between a religion and a cult is a few hundred years.
Now, I would like to retract a statement I made earlier. I got things confused. While there are testimonies of angelic visitations before the mid-1830’s, I know of none that specifically discuss priesthood ordination before 1834, and in this account I do not think the name of the angel is given.
Grindael
Have you read the notes from the website giving Joseph’s Smith’s original words. If you had you would realize that the Manuscript history of this portion of the doctrine and covenants was written around 1854-55, and reads as it does in the Doctrine and Covenants. Now, the two diaries are the primary sources of the history, but even this website admits that “What motivated the historians to make the change (“were it not so he could not dwell in us”) remains a mystery,” but also admit that the change is in line with what Joseph Smith taught at other times and places. As such you have no proof that the change was not made by Joseph Smith, or at least made to conform with what Joseph Smith taught on other occasion.
As to your 1831 revelation, this is not the same revelation as section 132. It may, and I emphasize may, deal with some of the same topics, but it is not the same revelation. The revelation that is now section 132 was not recorded until 1843. (http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng&query=%22calling+and+election%22)
Spartacus
There is only one reply to your question: If God commands it than that is a good reason. It all comes down to my first point. If you accept Joseph Smith and his successors as prophets then you accept that these changes, of whatever nature they were, were commanded by God, and you don’t question his authority. If you do not accept these men as prophets than there is no way to explain the changes.
I accept Joseph Smith as being a prophet of God, as well as those who succeeded him. Therefore I have no problem in accepting that God commanded that these changes be made.
You do not accept these men as prophets, and thus there is no way to adequately explain the reasons for them.
SR
If you are talking about the Gold Plates, than no they are not available. Even the original manuscript as translated by Joseph Smith no longer exists in its entirety, as far as I know.
To All
A comment of the comparison of the Bible and Book of Mormon that Ralph has brought up:
Concerning the Bible, we have, comparatively speaking, few records of the time of the apostles. On the other hand we have a great many for the time of Joseph Smith and the early years of this latter day church. Thus any comparison, no matter what it is based on, is going to be faulty. What we have of the Bible was well preserved. However, we do not know what else the early saints taught and believed. We also have no record of their speculations and opinions.
As Ralph mentioned, they may have made changes and additions or deletions to their original writings before the copies we have were made. We do not know. So, I think his point is that until you prove that the men you uphold as being inspired of God are proven to not have done similar things, the accusations mean very little.
As to your 1831 revelation, this is not the same revelation as section 132. It may, and I emphasize may, deal with some of the same topics, but it is not the same revelation. The revelation that is now section 132 was not recorded until 1843.
You must be schizophrenic Shem. You are the one who said section 132 was first given in 1831 and not written down until 1843. That is why I produced the text of the 1831 “revelation” which is not the same. You obviously can’t even remember what you write:
And you can say ‘May” all you want but it absolutely does not deal with anything remotely resembling what Smith invented in 1843.
It doesn’t matter about the Manuscript History Shem. It still says in both accounts that the Holy “Ghost” cannot dwell in a person or stay with them, hence, they cannot have the constant companion of the Holy Ghost.
Diary Accounts
The D&C completely leaves out the GIFT of the Holy “Ghost”. This is crucial to what Smith was saying. He definately said that a person could not have the constant companion of the Holy “Ghost’. What was done here, was to change the meaning so that it says that a man may receive the Holy “Ghost”, but not couple that with the GIFT of the Holy Ghost. My point is still well made, and what you wrote, that none of the revelations had been changed after the time of Smith is WRONG.
No they don’t, because you are trying to prove a negative. Prove that what you are saying is true. Prove that they aren’t their original words. You can’t. But we CAN PROVE that Smith changed, fudged, doctored, added to and messed around with his revelations long after the fact in an effort to deceive and change history. THAT IS A PROVABLE FACT.
Grindael,
I have shown proof that the Bible has been altered in some sections in what we have now compared to the earliest manuscripts we have available. In fact, the Bible we have now is based upon 3 sources which have discrepencies between them, and the Dead Sea Scrolls show discrepencies again to the Biblical books they include. So we can prove that alterations were made to the texts throughout the years.
Also another controversial position is that the books have been ascribed an author, but the validity of many of these authors have been and are still being argued. I know you can most likely show me some scholarly articles proving to yourself and others that want to believe that the authors are the ones that are now found in the Bible, but there are other articles out there that say otherwise.
So my argument can and does remain valid. There are many things about the Bible and its make up/writing process that we do not know about because there are no eyewitnesses to the fact that are willing to step up to the plate at the moment to tell us.
Yes we can prove that JS or others made changes, but if that is how the revelation process goes, including how the Bible’s original manuscripts were written, then there is nothing wrong with it is there?
Ralph,
I have a question for you, but any LDS can answer it if they want to. Even if another LDS answers it, I would still like your thoughts.
Well I guess it will be a few questions, not just one. LDS claim they use the Bible and read and teach from the Bible, Yet you guys claim it is translated incorrectly and you are here saying changes have been made. So can you prove that the Bible is translated incorrectly? Saying your prophets and presidents say it is, is not evidence. Then you guys quote the Bible and use bible verses, so when you quote a bible verse, how do you know the verse your quoting is accurate and not translated incorrectly? If your right and the Bible is translated incorrectly, how come no LDS prophet has ever gone before God asked what verses are wrong, then came forward and said, here is the correct translation of the verse?
Then you guys claim that the Bible has changes, yet Jesus and the apostles quoted the OT, AND the Bible says in ACTS 17:11 they searched the scriptures to know if these things are true. How could they search the scriptures to know if these things are true if they are not translated correctly? Also we have lots of Prophecy’s, roughly 300 alone on the birth of Jesus, his death, when he would die, how he would die, the fact that he would get his beard ripped out, he would be traded for 30 pieces of silver and it goes on. These are not really vague prophecies they are very detailed and exactly like they are mentioned. So this is evidence the OT can be trusted. Books like the Book of Isaiah for example was written before Jesus was born and died. And now we find the dead sea scrolls and we can compare the dead sea scroll copy to what we have today for the Bible and if we have any changes, they are really minor, and they do not effect doctrine. Yet this cannot be said of the BoM. Were talking thousands of years from the OT book of Isaiah to when we found the dead sea scrolls. Yet from the Time of the first BoM till today’s copy we have not only 4,000 plus changes, but some are doctrinal and were talking changes made to almost every copy of the BoM from day one till now.
Then some Mormons teach and believe that JS stuck his face in a hat with a magic rock and translated the Book by the power of God. If this is true, then according to how it was done, their should have never been a single mistake or change. Now I know you guys will say, any changes were a result from error or printing or enemies from the church, but I dont believe that for a few reasons.
1. is You guys believe and teach on going revelation, and Shem even said he believe that God will speak to you guys and tell you what brand of Vacuum to use in the temple. So it stands to reason, why did God not say, changes were made to the BoM, please correct it before printing? Or after they were found, how come they were not fixed, the incorrect book removed as best as you could do, then foot noted that these errors were made and corrected?
I just had MM sit in my house maybe 3 months ago, I showed them how my 1920 book of Mormon had changes that were not the same as their newest 1981 edition. You mean that changes were from enemies of the church and these changes took place all the way up to my 1920 edition? Lets see, here is a break down of the time line changes. 1830 to 1920 changes were made, then 1920 to 1964 changes were made. Then 1964 to 1981 more changes. Wow Ralph, that is a lot of changes to a lot of editions, No foot note noting these changes were made, and unless you are aware of these changes, the church is not really keen on admitting this.
Now before you claim they are opening to admitting this, these MM’s I had at my house were not aware of these changes, and when I said, here is my 1920 copy, show me the foot notes stating the changes, they could not do it. Also around 15 years ago when I first started talking to Mormons, they were adamant, I was lying and no changes were ever made. So even if the LDS church is more open to admitting changes, that really is fairly new and probably has a lot to do with AL Gore inventing the internet. Thanks Al Gore, LOL.
Grindael
The point is that we don’t know exactly what Joseph Smith said. Clayton’s diary is not a word for word account, and it is likely that Joseph’s account was recorded by a scribe.
I am not saying the change did not happen, but that it happened from these diaries to the History of the Church Manuscript, and we don’t know why. We do not have a clear picture as to the reasons it was made, and thus it is rather pointless arguing about it.
Concerning the revelation you referenced, if it is not the same revelation than why does it need to be directly connected.
Now, I know what I said, and I never once contradicted myself. section 132 was received in the early 1830’s, and most likely in 1831. However, it was not recorded until 1843. Did I ever say anything to the contrary.
The simple fact that another revelation was received and recorded in 1831 means nothing. There were well over 30 other revelations recorded in this year that are now part of the Doctrine and Covenants. You have proved nothing.
Rick
Look of the Joseph Smith Translation. It should answer all your questions on the accuracy of the Bible and which passages were mistranslated, as well as God’s command to restore the correct translation.
As to the rest of it, it really seems to me that all you are going for is sensationalizing everything. To point it out you claim “Shem even said he believe that God will speak to you guys and tell you what brand of Vacuum to use in the temple.” Now, this is itself a sensationalized version of what I said, as I only said God could reveal that, but that I do not think he does it very often. With this kind of hyped up comments to base your questions on it appears that you are more looking to bait us than actually have anything explained.
Just out of curiosity, how many differences are then between the various bible translations that exist today, and how many of them are footnoted?
Oh, and why did some of the Protestants toss the Apocrypha out when it had been considered scripture for a millennium?
Shem said
Are you serious? I happen to own a copy, And it clearly states both contradictions with in the Bible it’s self, And even states that the translation is possible not complete. Some LDS feel it is not finished, and the LDS church does not endorse or uses it, it might use a few verses in the Foot notes, but the majority of it is rejected. So please try again.
Shem said
I will focus on the part where you say, I do not think he does it very often.
Two things come to mind, 1 is. Here you go again saying, I think, more opinion from you.
Then you say, I dont think he does it very often.
Saying he does not do it very often verse never does it imply’s he does do it or has done it. If he does it even once or twice, then how come he cannot answer the bigger issues?
Shem,
One more thing, If the J.S.T Of the Bible is the corrected version of the Bible, then why have you never quoted them? You have given me many verses from the Bible, you have never said, these are the “correct” verses taken from the J.S.T. Of the Bible. It seems to me if you and other LDS feel the Bible is corrupt and the J.S.T is the correct version then it makes me wonder if you guys are Hypocrites, because you guys never quote from the J.S.T or you guys are lairs since you never use it.
I once a few years back went through official LDS approved books, and websites and looked at every verse quoted or given from the Bible, even prophets and presidents of the Mormon church quoted the Bible and for about every one hundred verses or so they then quoted the J.S.T.
Funny how you sit here and tell me the J.S.T is the answer to my question, but you yourself never use it and neither do your prophets.