On Sources And Resources, And Changes To The Historical Record

[Gaia]

I've been accused of using "anti-LDS" sources in some discussions, and as i've said, i neither beleive in doing so, nor need to, since i have a copy of the "GospeLink 2001" CD Rom Program (see http://gospelink.com/) --

However, i can't help but wonder whether anybody here is aware -- or would be honest enough to acknowledge -- that there HAVE been (major) CHANGES to both the Scriptures and the HIstorical record --

and not just a few words for clarity, spelling or grammatical corrections here and there.

In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants began a policy of retroactive editing by reversing previous meanings, adding concepts and whole paragraphs to the texts of previously published revelations. The official alteration of pre-1835 revelations is the more fundamental context for the later pattern of editing in the "History of the Church".

For analyses of changes in revelatory texts, see the following LDS sources:

- Melvin Joseph Peterson, "A Study of the Nature and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," MA Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1955;

- Richard P Howard, "Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development" Independence, MO: Herald House, 1969;

- Robert J Woodford, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 3 vols, Ph.D. Diss, Brigham Young University, 1974;

- Milton V Backman, Jr. "The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1930-1838" 214-215;

- Woodford, "The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign 14:32-39; and

- Woodford, "Doctrine and Covenants Editions," in Ludlow, _Encyclopedia of Mormonism_ 1:242.)

Thus, some people might be understood for consulting resources other than LDS church-approved, to get a complete and accurate historical picture.

~Gaia

[antispatula]

Gaia,

do you have any links you can share with us that perhaps show sections prior to revision and then the edited version, for comparison?

I think more people, including myself would appreciate a convenient link instead of books.

Interesting topic though, I would love to learn more!

[Snow]

What a surprize - that you have chosen yet another topic, typically chosen by anti-Mormons, to cast aspersions on the Church. Why the desperation?

I've been accused of using "anti-LDS" sources in some discussions, and as i've said, i neither beleive in doing so, nor need to, since i have a copy of the "GospeLink 2001" CD Rom Program (see http://gospelink.com/) --

The specific accusation was that you were cutting and pasting quotes from an anti-Mormon website... which is true, specifically the lds-mormon (anti) website. Would you like me to prove it?

However, i can't help but wonder whether anybody here is aware -- or would be honest enough to acknowledge -- that there HAVE been (major) CHANGES to both the Scriptures and the HIstorical record --

and not just a few words for clarity, spelling or grammatical corrections here and there.

STOP THE PRESSES, ALERT THE MEDIA!

This may be news to non-Mormons but we Mormons believe in continuing revelation and inspiration. Joseph Smith constantly reworked his own (inspired) material as he came to a fuller appreciation of content and media. Why should we not do the same? Because we are frightened that someone like you will use it to drive her agenda?

Hardly.

The Church itself sponser the best scholarly research into such matters - for example, The Joseph Smith Papers project. The scope is immense and the scholarship of the highest magnitude.

http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/jspapers.asp

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/content/0...-1-2335,00.html

[a-train]

The most common tactic I have always seen in my discussions with anti-mormons is that they will present their position and when the holes in it are exposed they will present another objection to the Church without ever acknowledging said holes. They will go on and on and on and on in such accusations for eternity.

They only have one desire and it's not to obtain truth but to sell doubt. Like a car salesman, if one spiel doesn't do the trick, another is offered at the drop of a hat, and another, and another. All the while, the blunders and fallacies perceived by thier audience is never acknowledged, but they only attempt to distract us from their gross errors by keeping us on the defensive through the debasing tool of Satan--accusation.

Peter spoke of the latter-day false teachers when he said: 'many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.' (2 Peter 2:2) He said further: 'Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;' (2 Peter 2:10-12)

I look forward to hear that 'loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.'

When we engage in accusation, we become the children of the accuser, but the LORD said: 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven' (Matt 5:44-45)

God help me.

-a-train

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

I've been accused of using "anti-LDS" sources in some discussions, and as i've said, i neither beleive in doing so, nor need to, since i have a copy of the "GospeLink 2001" CD Rom Program (see http://gospelink.com/) --

The specific accusation was that you were cutting and pasting quotes from an anti-Mormon website... which is true, specifically the lds-mormon (anti) website. Would you like me to prove it?

Gaia, on another thread you also said:

Secondly, i don't use "anti-LDS" sources; I neither beleive in doing so, nor need to -- I have a copy of the GospeLink 2001" program (see http://gospelink.com/ ) which has all the scriptures, periodicals and most LDS books on CD Rom.

Now Gaia, you have groused when I asserted that you and honesty didn't have as close a relationship as one would like to see in someone who claims to be LDS. Fair enough. You just claimed that you didn't not use anti-Mormon sources. I have said that you cut and pastes quotes from an anti-Mormon website.

Who is being truthful? Me? You?

In your post #3 found here:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...c=9990&st=0

you listed 9 quotes (bulleted by the numbers 1,2,3,5,6,7). You got the all 9 quotes 9 (and only9) quotes found at the anti-Mormon website lds-mormon on the page titled "mothink" I am not giving the exact web address because I don't like to link to anti_Mormon sites. Most people may know where to find it if they care to check or they can PM and I'll provide the link.

[Moksha]

Gaia, were the meanings changed to correspond with current doctrines and revelations?

[Snow]

So Gaia,

I take your silence to be a "whoops - busted" acknowledgement.

Can we safely assume that next time you get caught not telling the truth, you won't fall back on the ole ad hominem refuge?

[Palerider]

So Gaia,

I take your silence to be a "whoops - busted" acknowledgement.

Can we safely assume that next time you get caught not telling the truth, you won't fall back on the ole ad hominem refuge?

don't forget they do own Gospel Link 2001....I own several anti Mormon Books....what does that make me?????.......

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

So Gaia,

I take your silence to be a "whoops - busted" acknowledgement.

Can we safely assume that next time you get caught not telling the truth, you won't fall back on the ole ad hominem refuge?

don't forget they do own Gospel Link 2001....I own several anti Mormon Books....what does that make me?????.......

Crazy...but then we knew that already.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

So Gaia,

I take your silence to be a "whoops - busted" acknowledgement.

Can we safely assume that next time you get caught not telling the truth, you won't fall back on the ole ad hominem refuge?

don't forget they do own Gospel Link 2001....I own several anti Mormon Books....what does that make me?????.......

Crazy...but then we knew that already.

Thank you

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

So Gaia,

I take your silence to be a "whoops - busted" acknowledgement.

Can we safely assume that next time you get caught not telling the truth, you won't fall back on the ole ad hominem refuge?

don't forget they do own Gospel Link 2001....I own several anti Mormon Books....what does that make me?????.......

Well - I did give her a hard time about doing her research on an anti-Mormon site, but obviously I too am familiar with the site. I have a decent anti library myself and even some tomes on atheism and other such interesting topics. I suggest, however, that she and I visit anti sites for opposite reasons.

The real issue is that she lied about it.

[Palerider]

I can't wait for her response......... B)

[Snow]

I can't wait for her response......... B)

What, I wonder, having been caught red-handed, are the chances that she will say: "You are right. I have been dishonest. I didn't think I would get caught. I apologize?"

Not too high I think.

[drjme]

I wonder how many times the Bible has been chopped, changed, books and passages omitted, added, translated and retranslated, modernized and revised into many different interpretations over the years?

Does anyone care to take a guess? not me. I suppose people should pick holes in the bible revisions if they are

to try and pick at the BOM. :)

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

I can't wait for her response......... B)

What, I wonder, having been caught red-handed, are the chances that she will say: "You are right. I have been dishonest. I didn't think I would get caught. I apologize?"

Not too high I think.

Let me flip a coin in the air....call it..........LOL!!!!

[Gaia]

The most common tactic I have always seen in my discussions with anti-mormons is that they will present their position and when the holes in it are exposed they will present another objection to the Church without ever acknowledging said holes. They will go on and on and on and on in such accusations for eternity.

GAIA:

Look, A-Train, i think i've tried to carry on a relatively respectful, even cordial exchange with you, but i seldom see much indication of that from your side; instead, i see a lot of these spurious, semi-accusations.

First of all, Heavenly MOther is certainly not an "anti-Mormon" topic -- as many posters to that thread indicated, there is a deep and abiding affection for and curiousity about Her among many LDS.

Secondly, if you remember, I DID NOT RAISE the topic of Adam-God, i was merely responding to another poster's questions about it, and if you will remember what i actually said about it, it was hardly the kind of argument an "anti-Mormon" would make -- I said that while i did NOT necsssarily accept the entire idea, i did think it "contained some truth and beauty". That is hardly the sort of position any "anti-Mormon" would take regarding it.

Thirdly, Please let me remind you that contrary to your theory above, i've introduced several threads on basic, essential LDS doctrine, such as the Fatherhood of Christ and the Oneness of the Father and Son --

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...10011&st=75,

See especially post # 76;

- and i posted (TWICE -- Posts # 4 and 5) to the thread on "Being Loved By Heavenly FAther" http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9998.

I can't help wondering whether they were ignored because they just don't fit the image of me as a (potentially) ravening "anti-mormon" wolf in the fold.

I posted this topic because there were comments and questions on my sources, and this is one important issue seldom addressed, relative to sources .

Look, the truth is (as the LDS references i gave indicate), there certainly have been changes to the historical record. You may not like that truth, but it does not necessarily have to be characterized as "Anti-Mormon" -- in fact, there are many ways of characterizing and understanding it -- and me.

The desperate need to defend everything and quickly put down anything that is not considered "faith promoting" is NOT necessarily an indication of real faith, it's fear-based.

Aamong a certain kind of Mormon, there is a tendency to believe that everything that is said or written about the Church must be glowingly positive and flattering, or else it's labelled "anti-Mormon."

Because i've frequently told the truth about LDS doctrine and history, regardless of whether that truth is flattering to the church, i have been questioned on my motives and accused of being "anti."

...Why does the well-established and generally respected Mormon Church today need a protective, defensive, paranoid approach to its history that the actually embattled earlier Saints did not employ?

Some people want Church history to be as elementary as possible and as defensive as possible. This is Accommodation History for consumption by the weakest of the conceivably weak Saints, for the vilest of the conceivably vile anti-Mormons, and for the most impressionable of the world's sycophants...

It may be intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable...

The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials... A so called "faith promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other, far more destructive sources who don't bother to try to understand those problems, only to use them against the Church ...

I am convinced that we can be honest enough, faithful enough, and courageous enough to ACCEPT and DEAL WITH the problems in our History, rather than pretending they don't exist, and demonizing and punishing those who remind us of them.

~Gaia

[Gaia]

Gaia,

do you have any links you can share with us that perhaps show sections prior to revision and then the edited version, for comparison?

I think more people, including myself would appreciate a convenient link instead of books.

Interesting topic though, I would love to learn more!

GAIA:

Hi Antispatula --

Hey, your ID wouldn't happen to mean that you hate spatulas and work all day long to destroy them, tell terrible lies about them and their history and doctrine, would it????

Not so much links, but i have several examples in my files:

1. The Hymnal has been edited to remove references to doctrines that were taught by previous Church leaders, which are now considered heretical -- For one small example, see Hymn #51: "Sons of Michael He Approaches" which originally included a reference to the now-heretical "Adam-God" doctrine, as follows:

The orignal version said:

"Sons of Michael, he approaches!

Rise; the Eternal Father greet" --

The Current version corrected it to read:

"Rise, the ancient father greet."

2. A quote taken from the original Relief Society minutes is a good example of this problem of editing/ changing/ CENSORING historical materials, to support current policies:

The ORIGINAL said:

"The Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and that JOseph Smith was "going to make of this Society a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

(Joseph Smith statement, 30 Mar. 1842, in microfilm copies of original minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith Collection, at the Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, Provo, Utah.

And in:

- Transcript copy in Linda King Newell papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Ut.

- Andrew F Ehat and Lndon W Cook, "The Words of the Joseph Smith" 110;

- Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant, 43, 53.

-- Compare with the altered version of these minutes in BH Roberts, ed. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 4:570.

In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official "History of the Church" omitted Joseph's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church", thusly:

"going to make of this Church a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Those two alterations changed the entire meaning of the statement.

3. Joseph had himself crowned "King, Priest, and Ruler over Israel" --

(Minutes of meeting, 4 Feb 1885; Franklin D Richards diary, 4 Feb 1885...

Lyman Wight and Heber C Kimball to Joseph Smith, 19 June 1844, LDS Archives. The concluding passage in which this statement appeared was DELETED from "History of the Church 6:340-341.

4. Changes to Scriptures and Revelations:

Please NOTE: I got some of these off of a previous BeliefNet post, I haven't had a chance to examine each of these and compare with my GospeLink copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon; so i would encourage you to do the research and check for yourself, before necessarily accepting as truth, what is said here.

Over the years the Mormon Church has made thousands of changes to its scriptures. LDS leaders have added and deleted words, and changed previously published revelations by writing in new material and falsely attributing it to an earlier date.

Book of Mormon (1830 ed.), 1 Nephi p. 25 — Changes the phrase "the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, to read in modern versions, the mother of the Son of God. Later, on the same page the original phrase "the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father" now reads "the Lamb of God is the son of the eternal Father." This reflects Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of the nature of God.

compare to: 1 Nephi 11:18

Book of Commandments (1835), Chapter 6 — Over 50 words added to the original revelation which alter the meaning and open the door for Joseph to give additional revelation.

compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 7:1-8

Book of Commandments, Chapter 24 — Over 100 words added later to this revelation introducing terms and concepts not part of the LDS church when it was first formed. Such retroactive insertions of terms like "high priest", "presiding elder" and "high councilor" give the false impression that these elements were part of Mormon church since the beginning.

compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 20:49-68

Book of Commandments, Chapter 28 — Over 300 words regarding the restoration of the Mormon priesthood have been added (apparently by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery) to the end of this revelation. By adding the story of a supernatural appearance of Peter, James and John to a revelation dated 1830, it appears that the giving of the Melchizedek priesthood to Joseph and Oliver has been known since then. However, nothing is known or recorded of any such event until this revision was added in 1835.

compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 27

The Evening and Morning Star, October 1832 — Once again several hundred words are added to an earlier revelation. These give detailed policy guidelines and retroactively add new concepts like "presidency of the church" and "stakes", giving the appearance that such things came directly from God through revelation.

compare to: Doctrine and Covenants 68

Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 749 — Joseph's candid statement that he "frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God" is modified and softened. The italicized words have been changed or deleted and an over 75 word disclaimer is added, which says in part, "In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins."

compare to: Joseph Smith — History 22-29

5. Problems with HC "History of the Church":

The HC deleted significant entries in "The History of Joseph Smith" as first published by "Times and Seasons" "Deseret News" , and "Millennial Star".

Second, the officially published History of the Church also deleted evidence, introduced anachronisms, even reversed meanings in manuscript minutes and other documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form.

Obviously, these changes create problems for anyone who would want to study/ understand LDS history and doctrine.

Blessings -

~Gaia

[Snow]

Well, what about it Gaia,

Are you going to address your blatant lie?

[a-train]

A very wise man once told me: 'Only YOU can choose to be offended.'

There is grave danger in the art of accusation.

Gia,

There was only one question you asked me:

...Why does the well-established and generally respected Mormon Church today need a protective, defensive, paranoid approach to its history that the actually embattled earlier Saints did not employ?

The protection that the Saints and the Church are looking for is from false accusation and mis-representation. Deliverance from which will only come through righteous living and not through debate, scholarship, or otherwise.

Cultists and anti-mormons make false assertions (whether they know they are false or not) about the Church, the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Prophets, etc.

Example: They assert that Brigham Young taught that Adam is Eloheim. Whether they understand the truth or not makes no difference. Brigham Young did NOT teach that and they assert that he did. It is therefore a false assertion. Did Brigham teach that Adam is God? YES. What does this mean? Read what he said, he did not say that it means Adam is Eloheim.

-a-train

[Gaia]

A very wise man once told me: 'Only YOU can choose to be offended.'

GAIA:

I think -- and there certainly seems to be evidence here that others agree with this -- there's a difference between offense, and "righteous indignation". What that difference is, and what constitutes the latter, is certainly a matter of disagreement for many, however *rueful smile*.

The protection that the Saints and the Church are looking for is from false accusation and mis-representation. Deliverance from which will only come through righteous living and not through debate, scholarship, or otherwise.

GAIA:

I would certainly and strongly agree with (at least the first part of) that;

However, i would not rule out "scholarship" and particularly "seek[ing] learning by study and by faith" (D&C 88:118) as another way to protect against false accusations, misrepresentation and error.

Cultists and anti-mormons make false assertions (whether they know they are false or not) about the Church, the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Prophets, etc.

GAIA:

Oh, Agreed!

Perhaps someday you might be interested in hearing how i was once asked by Apostle Mark E Petersen and my Stake President, to help the church ferret out some such "cultists"..... :)

Did Brigham teach that Adam is God? YES. What does this mean? Read what he said, he did not say that it means Adam is Eloheim.

-a-train

GAIA:

Hmm -- And if i could present some quotes which indicated that he (or other GA's) DID? :)

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Snow]

GAIA:

Oh, Agreed!

Perhaps someday you might be interested in hearing how i was once asked by Apostle Mark E Petersen and my Stake President, to help the church ferret out some such "cultists"..... :)

You used to work for Elder Petersen?

How did you go from that to denigrating the Church of Jesus Christ at every turn?

Are you going to apologize for lying?

[Palerider]

GAIA:

Oh, Agreed!

Perhaps someday you might be interested in hearing how i was once asked by Apostle Mark E Petersen and my Stake President, to help the church ferret out some such "cultists".....

are you trying to impress us or just avoiding the question Snow asked....

[a-train]

Allright fellers,

I know she's askin' for it, but show your fatherly Christlike self and keep the high-fives in the back-ground.

Gaia,

Don't let pride get you. Some good fun heckling is to be expected from someone as rambunctious as these guys, but don't let Satan work you over with it. He does that all the time. People get something said to them at Church and they can't get over it so they never come back. This doesn't hurt anyone but them.

Turn the other cheek, worry not that others may see you as their inferior, and you will come out just fine in the end. Such was the method of our LORD.

-a-train

[Snow]

I'm reminded of the haunting 1968 hit by pop singer and recovering heroin addict Dion Dimucci:

Has anybody here seen my old friend Gaia

Can you tell me where she's gone?

She freed a lot of people but it seems the good

they leave young.

I just looked 'round and she's gone"