New Joseph Smith Paper website! Very cool!

[David T]

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/home

So much for the Church hiding everything, or making it so only the few members who are able to plop down the big bucks are able to see these deep dark documents that reveal the Church's TRUE deceptive history

There's some interim content to show how it will be formatted, such as D&C 76: The Vision here.

[David T]

Wait, it appears that all of the published Journals Volume 1 is already up and ready for reading/viewing/searching! As well as many early documents as well. Unlike the letterpress edition, this online edition has a photograph of each page in addition.

Check it all out here

[David T]

Including this element the Church is trying so hard to suppress:

"In the revelation, the phrase

[volgadon]

Cool!

[David T]

Yeah, it appears that all (or at least the majority) of Documents, Volume 1, which hasn't been published yet, is all online, with intros for every entry. I mean, I know they promised this would go online, but this is cooler than I imagined.

[Mike Reed]

Including this element the Church is trying so hard to suppress:

CFR. Who has claimed that the Church is now trying to surpress it?

[David T]

CFR. Who has claimed that the Church is now trying to surpress it?

I can't even count how many times I've personally had individuals tell me how the Church doesn't want people to know that the revelations in the D&C have changed, and using the Book of Commandments version of this "rod of nature" to show how church members were involved in witchcraft, and they didn't want present members to know.

Just a couple weeks ago, actually, over at Mormon Coffee (I posted there for 2 days, period.) I was told the Church is hiding their history, and especially the changes in the revelations, and never tell anyone about them.

[CA Steve]

Great Link Nackhadlow!!!! Thanks

[Mike Reed]

I can't even count how many times I've personally had individuals tell me how the Church doesn't want people to know that the revelations in the D&C have changed...

Then citing a reference should be an easy thing to do.

and they didn't want present members to know.

Didn't or don't? Are you geting your tenses mixed up?

Just a couple weeks ago, actually, over at Mormon Coffee (I posted there for 2 days, period.) I was told the Church is hiding their history, and especially the changes in the revelations, and never tell anyone about them.

CFR.

[cinepro]

I can't even count how many times I've personally had individuals tell me how the Church doesn't want people to know that the revelations in the D&C have changed, and using the Book of Commandments version of this "rod of nature" to show how church members were involved in witchcraft, and they didn't want present members to know.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but Oliver Cowdery had the Gift of Aaron and it had nothing to do with a "dowsing rod"!

D&C 8:6

[blackstrap]

Gee,Mr. "rod of nature" ,how does one reference a private conversation?

[Mike Reed]

Gee,Mr. "rod of nature" ,how does one reference a private conversation?

Who said anything about private? BTW... I made the CFR to nackhadlow, not you.

[Mike Reed]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but Oliver Cowdery had the Gift of Aaron and it had nothing to do with a "dowsing rod"!

You doubt the power of the thing of nature... I mean rod of nature... I mean gift of Aaron (ie Priesthood)?

Apostate.

[Wiki Wonka]

You doubt the power of the thing of nature... I mean rod of nature... I mean gift of Aaron (ie Priesthood)?

Apostate.

Well...uh...didn't the rod of Aaron actually...sprout?

WW

[Mike Reed]

Well...uh...didn't the rod of Aaron actually...sprout?

WW

Yep. Divining Rods were associated with the Rod of Aaron and called sprouts.

[Wiki Wonka]

I mean really, how is anyone going to translate a document with a dowsing rod? That's crazy talk!

All you have to do is ask the rod several thousand "yes/no" questions.

I don't actually think Oliver attempted to translate using the sprout/thing/rod/gift. My guess is that he probably tried to use Joseph's seer stone.

Cue the obligatory FAIR wiki article: Oliver Cowdery and the "sprout/thing/rod of nature"

WW

[Mike Reed]

Cue the obligatory FAIR wiki article: Oliver Cowdery and the "sprout/thing/rod of nature"

Says the Wiki article: "We do not know if the 'rod' referred to by Sidney Rigdon when he edited the revelation was referring to a divining rod, since there is no other record beyond the revelation itself that indicates this."

Sigh...

Strangely, the phrase "losing the battle and not knowing it" comes to mind.

[Wiki Wonka]

Says the Wiki article: "We do not know if the 'rod' referred to by Sidney Rigdon when he edited the revelation was referring to a divining rod, since there is no other record beyond the revelation itself that indicates this."

Sigh...

Strangely, the phrase "losing the battle and not knowing it" comes to mind.

I'm not aware of a "battle" to keep it from being identified as a divining rod. I personally think it was one, but I can't just put my own speculation in the wiki. I think that the original identification of the item as a "sprout" certainly strengthens the case for the item being identified as a divining rod. If someone can suggest a good article which discusses that possibility, then I would be happy to use it and add it as a citation. What we do know from the Joseph Smith Papers is that Sidney changed the wording from "sprout" and "thing of nature" to "rod" and "rod of nature."

WW

[Calm]

CFR. Who has claimed that the Church is now trying to surpress it?

Mike, are you claiming that there are none or little claims that the Church suppresses things? Or just this one in particular?

As a side note, if the first, just came across another claim from Krakauer's book in another thread:

"the LDS Church would probably have paid him handsomely for the document, then hidden it in the president's vault with the other potentially embarrassing historical documents that church leaders have thus far managed to keep away from the prying eyes of scholars."

[Calm]

I can't even count how many times I've personally had individuals tell me how the Church doesn't want people to know that the revelations in the D&C have changed, and using the Book of Commandments version of this "rod of nature" to show how church members were involved in witchcraft, and they didn't want present members to know.

Just a couple weeks ago, actually, over at Mormon Coffee (I posted there for 2 days, period.) I was told the Church is hiding their history, and especially the changes in the revelations, and never tell anyone about them.

It has been part of the long standing claim of the Tanners about the Church suppressing knowledge about the changing of revelations:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changingtherevelations.htm

The Mormon Church has suppressed the truth concerning the Book of Commandments and the changes in the revelations.

[David T]

Then citing a reference should be an easy thing to do.CFR.

After dredging back through the mud over there, here's one reference for the conversation I had over at Mormon Coffee 2 weeks or so ago: (I posted as dltayman. This is one of the only two of their blog posts I'd commented in over there - the one before it being the other. I spent a couple days calmly and peacefully responding to nearly everything that Rick and f_melo tossed out at me. Realized it was useless, and left. No regrets. ):

The D and C had the lectures of faith removed and it was never stated in the D and C that I recall. Their were changes made in the original D and C and the original Pearl, yet these were never mentioned in the newest edition. Say what you want, but this is only a few books that are put out in one way or another by your church, and no mention of changes being made or why. That is hiding information and nothing short of deceitful because they are changing information and not telling anyone. why would they not tell us that things were changed?

I did not make an audio recording of the times such claims were verbally made to me in person, and thus cannot provide mp3s of said conversations to fulfill your CFR that this has been said to me on those personal occasions.

[blackstrap]

nackhadlow --- your patience and respectful response to the ***** CFR is a good example to those of us who are a bit more hair trigger.

[Mortal Man]

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/home

So much for the Church hiding everything, or making it so only the few members who are able to plop down the big bucks are able to see these deep dark documents that reveal the Church's TRUE deceptive history

There's some interim content to show how it will be formatted, such as D&C 76: The Vision here.

When will they be posting the GAEL?

[Fifth Columnist]

When will they be posting the GAEL?

And William Clayton's Nauvoo journal . . . and the Council of Fifty notes . . . (it goes on and on).

[Mike Reed]

I'm not aware of a "battle" to keep it from being identified as a divining rod. I personally think it was one, but I can't just put my own speculation in the wiki. I think that the original identification of the item as a "sprout" certainly strengthens the case for the item being identified as a divining rod. If someone can suggest a good article which discusses that possibility, then I would be happy to use it and add it as a citation. What we do know from the Joseph Smith Papers is that Sidney changed the wording from "sprout" and "thing of nature" to "rod" and "rod of nature."

WW

My book will (in relation to Joseph Smith's cane) briefly explore this passage, and in passing will cite examples where the Rod of Aaron/Divining Rod is called a "sprout" by practitioners. Clair Barrus recently presented a paper at Sunstone that could be cited, although I am unsure if he provided quotes showing that the rod was called a "sprout".