Last Friday, the LDS church announced a newly released digital edition of the LDS canon, which includes "adjustments" (as they call them). Many have called the changes a bomb detonated to revise history, especially on troubling issues such as racism and polygamy.
The reason for the changes? The first paragraph of official discussion on the "adjustments" says this:
The reason for the changes? The first paragraph of official discussion on the "adjustments" says this:
"The current printing masters of the 1979 edition of the King James Version of the Bible and the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price have deteriorated because of age and long use. The quality of the typeface is no longer as clear and sharp as it should be. Therefore, in the process of preparing new printing masters, the Church has taken the opportunity to make adjustments."(See http://www.lds.org/scriptures/adjustments?lang=eng )
Printing masters? In the digital age of desktop publishing they actually expect us to believe they had to do this because they were losing the printing masters?
The LDS church has all its scriptures, guides, footnotes, headings and more online, in digital format. When newspapers can daily transfer digital editions to printing masters for bulk volume, rapid prints, the church's reasoning that it was deteriorating printing masters looks like a ... lame excuse.
So why did the church take the "printing master" change-out opportunity to make "adjustments"?
Late last year, I posted a blog called the Infallible FAIL! which highlighted how the Mormon church's position on why they engaged in racist doctrinal practices in the past is a huge chasm to their claim of divine revelation. I will repeat a little of it again here.
One of the most significant 2013 edition changes is the heading to the Official Declaration 2, which states the following:
"Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."
But then, in the preceding Official Declaration 1 are these words:
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. "
Preceding the O.D.2 heading change on racism, in 2012, the church released a press statement that read: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago...We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."
This statement and the one in O.D.2 on racism are very profound. They, together with the statement in O.D.1, that the prophet not permitted to lead the church astray, tacitly admits that the previous statement, that the Lord won’t allow a prophet to lead the members astray, is false. For nearly 150 years the prophets have led the people astray with racist policies and the current prophet administration does not know why this happened, they just know firmly, racism is wrong. That repudiation of the former policy, of hundreds of statements made by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Bruce McConkie, and many more effectively opens the gate to an understanding that the current administrating prophets could be absolutely dead wrong on policies they have in place currently.
The other most interesting changes which many have already noted are those that change the headings. Removing the History of the Church references in the D&C reduces the influence of Joseph Smith's journal on the official history and allows them to keep sliding down history revisionism.
The other change is the Book of Abraham Introduction, from:
"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."To:
“An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”
They no longer admit, as Joseph Smith wrote in History of the Church, that it was written by the hand of Abraham. (History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51). Rather, it is an "inspired" translation. This is an obvious migration to one of the several solutions advanced by LDS apologists to overcome the deficit on the proven inability of Joseph Smith to actually translate Egyptian. Instead of claiming that Smith literally translated off of the actual papyri, the church appears to be evolving the story to one where Smith was inspired by the papryi, which acted as catalyst for an inspired account of Abraham's tale. It's actually a very clever, almost underhanded move.
The church leaders know they cannot directly, humbly address the concerns of members and critics who find the official claim of origins of the Book of Abraham highly suspect. They are now addressing them through a sliding of words that help re-define history, removing references to the source of these issues (the History of Church by Joseph Smith) and claiming that these changes are just minor necessary adjustments needed as the printing masters have aged.
In any case, the church is moving further from Joseph's claims about his "inspired translation" or revelation. I don't believe they will ever be able to completely remove Joseph Smith from the church, but this goes a long ways toward the beginning of marginalizing him.
My view is that LDS church leaders know that an onslaught of members have serious concerns, which cannot be addressed, mostly surrounding Joseph Smith. However, as is almost always seen in typical con-men modus operandi, they don't admit in humble honesty that Joseph Smith was an arrogant dictating opportunist, but rather try to carefully and slowly alter the equation without admission. They change without really admitting why they change. For as long as they can, they deny deny deny, but if forced, they change the problem without a lot of admission.
The LDS church treats history like a canal boat.
They can raise the water or lower it at will, allowing
some claims passage and others to be dry-docked.
Great analysis. Thanks for this, David.
ReplyDeleteWell stated. By subtly changing many documents, troubling points of view or expressions comfortably disappear into the memory hole. Good riddance. Now we are even more perfect than before. Perfect!
ReplyDeleteWell written my friend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for shareing.
Well written my friend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for shareing.
This kind of stuff reminds of the book 1984.
ReplyDeleteRevisionism, a Mormon tradition since 1830.
ReplyDeleteBefore I say anything further... I'm an unworthy, apostate Mormon. :D I've just started my blog in January, but if you read it you might understand what I mean. Well that is, if you don't mind reading through my archives. As a woman, I type waaaay to much as if I don't know how to shut up.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm certain you're aware of 2 Timothy 3:16? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" To me this means because prophets are imperfect people, we sometimes have to correct their errors. Like I'd totally rebuke the Apostle Paul if I could. Somewhere in the New Testament said woman like me should remain silent in the church and not teach men. I'd so totally rebuke him! Then there's also a place somewhere in first timothy that says not to rebuke an Elder. Heh, I'd rebuke that too saying what Christ said in Revelation, "Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent!"
So I said all that just to say you'd be surprised how many logical errors there are not only in the Mormon church, but also in the bible and the rest of Christianity. This is not to say Christ isn't real, that God's word isn't perfect, or that Christ didn't die on the cross, but rather simply that imperfect men wrote the scriptures!!!
Now you might find it interesting that I think the church is in the wrong for not openly saying all the changes they're making. It's simply in all contradiction to the laws of repentance. You admit first to faults, then you change the faults. You can't change faults without admitting to being imperfect or else people pop up on the internet and condemn the church for claiming to be perfect.
What the church fails to realize is what I tell people at my ward: The body of Christ is the church, the members of the church make up the different body parts of the body. Therefore the members of the church are the church, and a church can only be as perfect as its members are. (At times even pointing to scripture that says, "Whosoever declares more or less than this is not of me, but is against me, and the same is not of my church." Which makes sense in its context because if you say you're not the church, then you must also not be any member of Christ's body.)
So being a critic to the church who yet holds to the faith, and is active as much as I feel able, I am convinced that we're living in the days that we shall see the words in Isaiah chapter 61 fulfilled. In the church's SHAME and CONFUSION shall they receive the double portion. Why? Because I can tell you right now, God's not always the one feeding his sheep and working in the vineyard. The Mormons hired some strange folk as they love the treasures of this world.
So I like what Isaiah said also in chapter 29... For inasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, but their hearts be removed far from me, shall I proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder amoung this generation. The wisdom of the wise men shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent men shall be brought to nothing. The house of Jacob shall not be ashamed.
Its been 5 years since I entered a ward building. Its amazing how much I have forgotten about being a thread within the weaving of Mormon culture. Torhu Honda brings up in her first sentence the idea of being "worthy." I havent entertained the idea of being "worthy" in quite awhile.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that aspect of being worthy is a hugely controlling and dynamic word in the Mormon milieu. Most members regard themselves as slightly to moderately worthy in relation to the prophet, his counselors, and the twelve. These men are indeed "quite worthy" and "intitled" to make changes to scripture. The power deferential based on perceived worthiness speaks volumes as addressed in this blog entry.
A Salt Lake trib article on this same issue has quite an interesting thread of comments. One TBM saying that the anti's were "making a mountain out of a molehill" on it. Yet, those of us who see it for what it is are amazed at the lack of concern from the other side.
And, in comment to the earlier blog on Patriarchal Blessings, refresh my memory, but doesnt a person have to be found worthy before receiving it? In fact, not just entry to temples, but also teen dances require a recommend or some kind of clearance. This mentality of "worthiness" even comes with every little calling a person receives, and on and on.
Read the 4 gospels and see how often the word "worthy" comes up and how it is used. The abuse of worthiness in the mormon church becomes obvious.
Worthiness becomes a taskmaster, indeed this artificial worthiness, it keeps the members groveling. Its a cieling over ones head, that, once the lid pops off, you realize what true freedom is.
Back to scripture, the capriciousness of what is and is not scripture has lead many, as well as myself, to completely throw out entirely biblical and modern scripture from my life. Paul obliterated Christ's message and lends heavily to the behemoth that is Christian religion today. And the Old Testament, unless you are a Jew, cant be completely understood. I am not an expert on the subject, but my jewish friends through out the years are amused by how Christians use their scriptures. Attend synagogue some Saturday and watch midrash happen before your eyes, and you will see what I mean.
How old is the LDS church? About 175 years old? It has had a pile of change and controversy in its scripture, doctrine and teachings. Look at the contention, confusion and disaffection it causes. This is from a church that contends it is true and reflects the organization found in God's house.
Contrast this with Buddhism, which is 2500 years old. I am no expert in Buddhism and I am not Buddhist, but the saying is, all Dharma leads to Dharma. This means, although there are many Buddhist leaders, (and believe me, there are!) all of them teach "the way" and point to the same thing. I have yet, in my experience, listen to a dharma talk that disagreed with another one. I am new to this, but its been going on for 2500 years, this harmony.
What I am trying to say here is this, once a person steps back and sees the big picture, its all too apparent that the church only issues edicts from the COB to control the masses. I dont apologize for that opinion or care to act demure for a TBM that I hurt their feelings over it. However, I feel genuine sadness and compassion for those who are stuck in it and wont see their way out.
The thing I LIKE about the apostle Paul is that he threw the concept of having to be worthy to join God's church out the window. He did this by telling the Jews to let Gentiles join the church who were uncircumcised. Saying that although a man might have an uncircumcision of body, may he yet have a circumcision of heart. So that it's not a man's keeping of the law that makes him holy, but rather the heart's willingness to follow God. For all fall short of the glory of God, as all have different capabilities of doing things.
DeleteI find this wise on Paul's part because circumcision is a much more grievous procedure for adults than babies. So that I see no reason as to why to put such a grievous burden on a man to be of God's covenant people. Not saying that Gentiles should not be circumcised, or that Gentiles should not circumcise their children, but that the messiah died on the cross for the ungodly.
In retrospect, the LDS church should baptize smokers, alcoholics, etc. Not that people should do these sins, but that we should not bank someone's salvation based upon their ability to keep the commandments. For even David spoke of the blessedness of the man who is saved by grace without any good works, saying, "Blessed is the man whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not hold responsible for sin."
So yeah... I freaking love the apostle Paul man! I can't believe you don't.
I can well appreciate what ‘Tohru’ is saying, but let’s think reasonably and be realistically rational. There are only a few options to choose from. One is, ‘if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc, then it’s a duck.’ In other words, there is a plethora of very tenable data that would be well within in the bounds to conclude ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the LDS church is not what is has always claimed -- that JS was a true prophet called by a the one and only divine, resurrected Jesus Christ (to mention this one claim). There is just too much very questionable historical data, (the non sanitized versions) to think otherwise; to think (as do the LDS apologists), “Well, it’s possible that it still actually may not be a duck as we understand what a duck is.”
ReplyDeleteAnother option is that the church was established by the one and only true God the Son, Jesus Christ, but has since gone into apostasy (as did the Nephite church recorded in the BofM). This would mean that the non-perfect leaders of the LDS church -- the ‘Brethren’, are leading the church the astray by not being up-front and truthful (to mention just 0ne reason for their disqualification as worthy priesthood holding ‘true’ living prophets, seers, and revelators). So sure, people are not perfect, even ‘true’ prophets of God, but when those ‘true’ prophets no longer are truthful time after time, I can no longer sustain them. End of story.
"LIKE"
DeleteThe idea that the BoA was not a literal translation but an 'inspired' one is one i heard decades ago. That JS saw the egyptian papyrii and while looking at it got a revelation from god (the BoA). So it doesnt have to match any actual translation.
ReplyDeleteThe place where that goes belly-up is when JS 'translated' the pictures and put them in the book as real translations. The would knows the real translations of those pic's now and they aren't any where close to JS's explanation.
How is the church explaining away that???
(Printing masters? In the digital age of desktop publishing they actually expect us to believe they had to do this because they were losing the printing masters?)
ReplyDeleteI would like to speak to your first unfounded put down. The printing offices that have been printing the LDS Scripture sets have been in business for a long time. It is only good money sense to keep using technology that works and is still cost efficative. Since the 30-year-old technology for printing the scriptures was working well, no change was needed. As stated, the 30-year-old printing masters have finally shown enough ware to need updating.
You are a fool if you think new technology should replace working technology just because it is new.
fred
Fred: "You are a fool if you think new technology should replace working technology just because it is new"
DeleteStrawman. I never said it should replace it just because it is new. I said their excuse that the printing masters is the catalyst for these present changes is a lame excuse because they already have everything in digital format (and have for years) so that there's no need to change anything just because the printing masters are old. They're old, ok, and so you just shift to printing from the digital copy. Fine. But the need to do editing adjustments is the priority. The church makes it sound as though it's all because of the printing masters wearing out. That's a lame excuse.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
DeleteThe question is... Are the changes inspired? Will they instruct a man into righteousness? OR.... Are they just man's idea that leads us further astray?
I have no problem with change, it's errors I have problems with. And not being open about making changes to scripture is a huge error on the church's part. Although at the same time, I can't imagine proclaiming on the pulpit every minor adjustment you've ever made to the church. Not that there's some things they should not make known, just that I know times are ever changing and it's sometimes hard to keep up.
(The LDS church treats history like a canal boat.
ReplyDeleteThey can raise the water or lower it at will, allowing
some claims passage and others to be dry-docked.)
I see you have as poor knowledge of how a lock on a canal works as you have in your understanding of the LDS Church. A canal lock allows the user to raise or lower a canal boat so they can navigate the kinds of terrain that would stop a boats progression.
Just look at the Panama Canal. It lifts ocean-going boats up and over the mountains that get in there way, somewhat like the teachings of the LDS Church lift peoples’ knowledge over the mountains of lies Satin keeps puking in front of us.
fred
Fred, you haven't explained how my words: "raise the water or lower it at will, allowing some (claims) passage" is substantially different than your words: "A canal lock allows the user to raise or lower a canal boat so they can navigate the kinds of terrain that would stop a boats progression"
DeleteYou say progression I say passage. You say raise or lower, I said raise or lower...
You're straining at gnats and swallowing camels, Fred.
Fred,
DeleteDo you work in the printing dept? What is your source for this information?
Thanks
(Do you work in the printing dept?)
ReplyDeleteI made college money in a print shop many years ago during a different technology up grade. You just don’t waste money on new technology if the old is still a sound business practice.
Of course, now-a-days the “in thing” is to stand in line for days just so you can get the newest technology, even though your old technology is still working and it will become wasted money.
fred