would Joseph Smith have had to change many of the revelations in it before they were published in the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants?
D&C 67:6-9 - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/67/6#6
Key changes in the Book of Commandments revelations for the 1835 printing of the D&C - http://www.irr.org/mit/changingscrips.html#Key%20Changes%20B
2007-11-13 07:44:56 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One of the most significant of these changes was to BoC 4 (now D&C 5), which VASTLY expanded Joseph Smith's role:
BoC 4:
"and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift."
D&C 5:
"And you have a gift to translate the plates; [and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you;] and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift [until my purpose is fulfilled in this;] for I will grant unto you no other gift [until it is finished]."
Notice that the above bracketed words allowed Joseph to have "other gifts", which the Lord had supposedly said he would not have ("I will grant him no other gift"). After this was published, that was when the term "prophet, seer and revelator" was coined, and Smith was sustained as "President of the Church" instead of "First Elder".
What importance do you think this has?
2007-11-13 07:49:25 · update #1
Also, for the sake of those who don't know me, I am LDS. This is not a hateful question. It is an inquiry for discussion regarding one particular item among many that challenges many traditional tenets of the church. I am looking to see what other members of my church think about this. Please do not leave hateful comments. Thank you to all who provide insightful comments.
2007-11-13 07:52:19 · update #2
Stripling: I don't think it's a matter of simple semantics. It would be as if I went into the Bible and made the following change:
Thou shalt not kill [unless an entire nation will otherwise dwindle in unbelief] or something like that. If God gave a word-for-word revelation, and certified that it was true and contained no unrighteousness, you can't just change it. Don't dismiss the issue, please address it.
2007-11-13 08:05:26 · update #3
Hmmmmm(finger on side of cheek)............
2007-11-13 08:49:53 · answer #1 · answered by absent farmer 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hi there! :-)
Well, I started to go through each claim one by one, but then I found that the theme was the same throughout, so I'll just give a general reply.
These alterations are all in keeping with the nature of revelation. My life revolves around revelation, and I see "no unrighteousness" in any of these. Penguin, my friend.... Have you ever had personal revelation working within your life?
It seems that the main issue that the author has is this (false) idea that truth is revealed in one sudden miraculous act. See 1 Nephi 16:29 - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/29#29
The evolution of the doctrines and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in keeping with the nature of continuing revelation... and the reason why we have living prophets. The author of the page seems to think that Joseph Smith was (and must needs be) the author of every LDS doctrine, just because he was our FIRST prophet. Jesus Christ is at the head, guiding every revelation. See 2 Nephi 28:26-31 - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28/26-31#26
I have seen a similar evolution in my own beliefs over the years, giving clarity to former, more simple concepts, expanding them into a glorious view of the whole.
Never were the former revelations denied, but only expanded upon. Such is the nature of growth... which is the whole point in having a "true and living Gospel."
No one can endure on borrowed light, Penguin. If you want to search for truth, seek unto the true and everlasting God. There is no other way to know the truth except through personal revelation... And you can't find that by groping around in the darkness (listening to people who have no comprehension of the nature of God).
EDIT: Sometimes intellectual understanding just isn't enough.
2007-11-13 16:21:48 · answer #2 · answered by MumOf5 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Through the years the Lds church changes everything to fit the world to lie to it. They just the front cover in the Book of Mormon. When dna edivence proves their are no Jewish blood in Indians.
2007-11-14 12:45:02 · answer #3 · answered by Tinkerbelle2007 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i just wanted to point this out to idahomike3 that LDS members are christians! they have been christians since the beginning of the church. Our true name is The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints....you know what, it's obvious we are christians because we have taken the name of Christ...Where's the name Christ is Baptist, Methodist, Catholic? that's my point. we are christians, and we do bare the name of Christ....and i'm not criticizing baptist and other christian religions not having the name of Christ in their name...i'm just making a point that before you say someone isn't a christian, check their real name...
also..we use the Book of Mormon and the Bible! they are two separate books! The Book of Mormon is not the "mormon bible". it's the BOOK OF MORMON!!!! whoo hoo! we use the Bible too! just like the Old Testament told us to in Ezekiel 37: 15-19. and my brother happens to be serving a mission preaching the Gospel...he uses both because they work together!
Oh and Joseph Smith is not our God. he is a prophet of God. thank you very much.
sorry i didn't answer the question...i just wanted to make that known because i thought that it was rude to say that stuff. and i'm not mad...i was just making a point.
2007-11-13 17:16:00 · answer #4 · answered by Sariah 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Does your understanding remain static? is it so difficult to understand that Joseph, too was able to understand in greater depth as age provided increased wisdom and experience.
There are many mysteries that I seek to understand -- quibbling over semantics isn't one of them.
EDIT: Your edit, imo, proved my point. Nephi was commanded by the Lord to kill Laban so that a nation wouldn't dwindle in unbelief. I enjoy seeking questions and finding answers. Often my answers create more questions. If I don't have a perfect understanding, I'm willing to take some things on faith and realize that I don't need to know everything God knows. Doesn't change basic truths such as Jesus is the Christ & Savior of Mankind. Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His only Begotten Son.
Your struggles with the semantics of these changes aren't mine. I see no significant difference [same with the wording change announced this week to the introduction to the Book of Mormon].
I have received my own personal testimony that the full gospel of Jesus Christ is only found within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It came in such a way that I cannot deny it or I would risk mocking God. At times, this life would be easier without the knowledge I have received -- to remain ignorant -- but with that knowledge came accountability.
I am aware from your previous posts that although you and your family attend LDS meetings, you no longer have faith in the tenets of the church. A post after mine [I don't remember who it is] said it beautifully. You do not appear to have received for yourself the revelation regarding this gospel of Christ and the purpose of this Church. An intellectual understanding of doctrine does not supplant the need for the greater spiritual witness. Conversely, a true spiritual witness is sufficient and does not demand a greater intellectual understanding. It is not necessary to understand all the mysteries of God -- fun, but not necessary. What is necessary is faith and obedience. My faith is unshakable - I'm working on the obedience.
I invite you to experiment upon the word -- one of the greatest things we learn from Joseph is that if we exercise faith, we can know the truthfulness of all things. We can reach the point where we can receive the Second Comforter. We can receive for ourselves, all the knowledge and understanding of revelation given, not only in this dispensation, but all dispensations.
Which takes me back to my original answer -- semantics are not of great concern to me -- I'm seeking greater understanding of the fullness of the gospel as pertains to the exaltation of myself and my family -- the rest is immaterial.
2007-11-13 16:00:23 · answer #5 · answered by strplng warrior mom 6 · 10⤊ 2⤋
God in the Bible describes Himself as without variableness or turning. It is not that way with the Mormon God though! That is why the changes.
2007-11-13 22:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by Buzz s 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ask Joseph Smith.....(God is God of the living, not of the Dead)....
2007-11-13 19:02:04 · answer #7 · answered by Jacob Dahlen 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good questions. I doubt if you get any decent answers. For some reason my questions about mormons and JW's have a tendency to get deleted.
2007-11-13 15:56:29 · answer #8 · answered by Bible warrior 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because that is what cults do... change to meet their purpose at the time.
God's Word does not change. What was true nearly 200 years ago is true today.
2007-11-13 15:52:02 · answer #9 · answered by ♥♥The Queen Has Spoken♥♥ 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Good question... also...why do they not use the bible that their so-called god gave to J Smith... why do they now claim to be Christian ...when for generations they taught that christians were the enemy and the christian bible was false...now they never mention the bible their so-called god gave J Smith and instead claim to be christian and to use the christian bible... if their so-called god gave J Smith "the bible" then it must surly be the only one they should use in teaching those they seek to recrute... but no...they never mention the bible from their so-called god... they keep claiming to christians now...which they ain't
2007-11-13 15:54:46 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 7⤋
Don't know. But somehow it doesn't really bother me. True or not.
2007-11-13 15:51:27 · answer #11 · answered by plastik punk -Bottom Contributor 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋