Was BOM wrong?

[LeSellers]

I did not leave the LDS Church because I was suckered by anti-Mormon trash about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. So you need to disabuse yourself of that idea.

But you did leave the Church because of anti-mormon trash about plural marriage (among other things) as I recall.

Second, don't ever pretend to judge how much work or investigation I put into trying to rightly divide truth from error. Just because my ultimate conclusion doesn't jive with your own doesn't mean I am some ill-informed moron.

It is precisely because you have arrived at a different conclusion, one that denigrates Joseph Smith (as you, I believe, reject the fact of his plural marriages), and the prophets of the Restoration that I must conclude that your investigation was either superficial or biased.

Plural marriage was not a mistake on Joseph's part, nor was it an invention of Brigham Young

[Lareliw]

I don't mean to be rude or invasive and if this is how I come off, please just ignore me I am new to all of this...if you believe the BoM, why leave the LDS church?

Let's get one thing straight...

I did not leave the LDS Church because I was suckered by anti-Mormon trash about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. So you need to disabuse yourself of that idea.

Second, don't ever pretend to judge how much work or investigation I put into trying to rightly divide truth from error. Just because my ultimate conclusion doesn't jive with your own doesn't mean I am some ill-informed moron.

I KNOW the Book of Mormon is the word of God and Joseph Smith was used to restore the Gospel and Priesthood to the earth. That testimony will be on my lips as I take my last breath and pass on to Paradise.

So back off, Lehi.

[Semperfidelis]

I didn't bring up the subject, but,as long as it has been broached, if God commanded Joseph Smith to have a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger and take her as a plural wife, who married them? A prophet can't marry himself. When Oliver Cowdery discovered the relationship, he, according to several historical accounts, questioned Joseph's authority, and Joseph supposedly replied, "I'm the prophet. I can do what I want to do." So, did Joseph get a command from God, or from himself, when he rolled in the hay with Fanny? That's what Emma Smith said that he was doing when she caught them in the barn together.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I just wanted to let you know that the Mormons, with whom I've talked, are considered active even though they are pretty inactive, and do things TBM Mormons consider bad. Most people don't know how the Mormon Church grades levels of activity.

Let me guess, you do, right?

Any way you keep trying to paint this picture as if we are all tied together as the borg are in star trek.

There is no standard on how "the Mormon Church grades levels of activity" out side of non member, active, or inactive.

[Semperfidelis]

Let me guess, you do, right?

Any way you keep trying to paint this picture as if we are all tied together as the borg are in star trek.

There is no standard on how "the Mormon Church grades levels of activity" out side of non member, active, or inactive.

I have had access to a copy of the "General Handbook of Instructions," which, like I said previously, is the operational guide for all Church officers. I have perused it, and I would encourage you to ask for a copy of it. You might be able to find it on the Internet. It shouldn't be off-limits to the rank-and-file church member. In it, there are degrees of membership activity listed, and the criteria for a Mormon bishop to use in extending callings, asking people to give talks in sacrament meetings, asking people to give prayers. The Mormon Brethern are very concerned about uniformity in the operations of the Church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I enjoy talking to people with open minds. Most active Mormons do not have open minds.

This is rich. Most people have closed mines. Most people like to cling to their preconcevied notions. But what you mean by closed mind and what I mean by closed mine are probably 2 different things. I probably have a closed mind to you because I more than likely will not wholesale accept your critique of the changes in the BoM.

Most active Mormons will not discuss the scripture change in 2 Nephi, because they don't know what to say, or how to respond.

More naked assertions. I am willing to discuss these changes and have done so on many occaccasions. I love your rather lame broad generalizations.

Most active Mormons, called TBMs, have never read the 1830 edition of the BOM, even though it is available at Deseret Book Stores.

Why are you talking to us like we have never heard of the LDS church? You do realize this is an LDS discussion board?

BTW I have never once referred to myself as a TBM outside of this board. Come to think of it I had never heard of it until I joined this board.

One more ironic point is that you mention that "1830 edition of the BOM, even though it is available at Deseret Book Stores."" flies in the face of your earlier assertion that the church does not want investigators to read these books.

That's where I bought my copy.

More evidence the church really does not want members to read these books, right?

But do you know what it takes for a person to be called active in the Mormon Church? One sacrament meeting per month.

I probably know a heck of a lot more about this than you. Again why are you lecturing us on this?

You can drink coffee, tea, and alcohol, and even smoke, and still be considered active, if you make one sacrament meeting per month. The Mormons I've talked with were regarded as active, but they were questioning their belief in the BOM and church doctrine. Salt Lake doesn't even remove your name from the population of the Church if you ask for your name to be removed, or if you are excommunicated.

I suggest that you stop pontificating on things that you are so clearly ignorant of. There are people even on this broad that have had their names removed with one simple letter to the 1st presidency.

You see, before I would want to commit myself to live a certain way, I'd want to know everything about the church preaching that particular lifestyle. That's why most Mormon converts leave the church within 5 years.

CFR please. And, no I don't see. You seem to be talking about a different "Mormon Church" than the one I am familiar with.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have been told numerous times, by active Mormons, that they are told by bishops and stake presidents not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works, but to study, and cite scripture, from the current editions, especially in their sacrament meetings and during Sunday school. The volume, "Mormon Doctrine," by McConkie, is currently not an approved book for sermon preparation. Is this not true? Or is it only true in some LDS wards and stakes?

I have never been told this. In fact all of my friends and co workers and all the people I know of that are LDS have never been told this. So I will take your anecdotal evidence and raise you with my anecdotal evidence.

You are going to need to do better than this my CFR stands. Were is an official statement form the church that we are not to "not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works". That is a load of BS that you made up. It wont work on this board.

Mormon Doctrine was never an approved book for sermon preparation. Since it's first publication it was always resented the views of one man. That would be BRM.

[thesometimesaint]

Semperfidelis:

If JS would have proposed taking as many mistresses as he liked. He'd have to beat new members off with a stick.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Fanny_Alger

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would really appreciate an explanation for the verse that was changed in 2 Nephi (white to pure),

This one is really easy, this just proves the BoM is false, right?

and the removal of the name "Jesus Christ" from the 1830 edition.

What on earth are you talking about. You are woefully ignorant of that which you speak.

What I mentioned about official statements about studying previous editions of your standard works must vary from stake to stake and from ward to ward.

Actually it is non existent. You made it up out of whole cloth. There is no statement.

I do, however, recall a recent General Mormon Conference where Dallin H. Oaks said, in one of his sermons, "I encourage you to study the four standard works in their current form and to refrain from reading any faith-demoting literature."

If so then please supply a reference for this. And I will even give you the benefit of the doubt here and say he did in fact say this, so what. He is only given a recommendation. That is not the same as saying "If you study past editions of the standard works you will be excommunicated". That is what you are implying.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I have never been told this. Infact all of my freinds and co workers and all the poeple I know of that are LDS have never been told this. So I will take your anecdotal evidence and raise you with my anecdotal evidence.

You are going to need to do better than this my CFR stands. Were is an offical statement form the church that we are not to "not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works". That is a load of BS that you made up. It wont work on this board.

Mormon Doctrine was never an approvied book for sermon preparation. Since it's first publication it was always repsented the views of one man. That would be BRM.

In defense he said previous editions cannot be used for talks and lessons. I too have been told this by leaderships when preparing classes to only use the current edition of the standard works and manuals to prepare.

You can use whatever edition you like for personal and family study, but for talks and lessons you must you the current editions.

The reason why they insist on using current editions is because te current editions have any corrections or new revelation in it. For example if you use the 1830 BoM you will have a book with over 4,000 typos in it. Using this edition can confuse people when what you are saying doesn't match up word for word with what the current corrected edition has.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In defense he said previous editions cannot be used for talks and lessons. I too have been told this by leaderships when preparing classes to only use the current edition of the standard works and manuals to prepare.

You can use whatever edition you like for personal and family study, but for talks and lessons you must you the current editions.

The reason why they insist on using current editions is because te current editions have any corrections or new revelation in it. For example if you use the 1830 BoM you will have a book with over 4,000 typos in it. Using this edition can confuse people when what you are saying doesn't match up word for word with what the current corrected edition has.

I am not disputing that people may have been told this in prepration to giving talks. I have never once heard this, though. I am not aware of any offical statement either. The good news is that he seems to have changed his story form "members should not study previous editions" to "Members should not give talks using those previous editions".

I see the wisdom in using current editions while giving talks.

However, I would not bat an eye if some one quoted from the 1830 edition. Infact just last year our sunday school teach Elder's Quorum teacher read some verse from the 1830 edition. Guess what? He is still active and in good standing. We even discussed some of the changes. In fact we discussed the change from White to pure. Oooooooh, the cover up.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

But you did leave the Church because of anti-mormon trash about plural marriage (among other things) as I recall.

No, one, of several reasons, I left because I believe the scriptures condemn polygamy- plain and simple. But that is only one of several reasons.

It is precisely because you have arrived at a different conclusion, one that denigrates Joseph Smith (as you, I believe, reject the fact of his plural marriages), and the prophets of the Restoration that I must conclude that your investigation was either superficial or biased.

I don't believe my view denigrates Joseph Smith in the least. Instead of declaring him a lying, hypocritical, perjurer- as a belief in his teaching/practice of polygamy would do- I believe he was honest when he declared he was innocent of polygamy or any associated practice, and had only one wife- Emma.

Plural marriage was not a mistake on Joseph's part, nor was it an invention of Brigham Young

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't mean to be rude or invasive and if this is how I come off, please just ignore me I am new to all of this...if you believe the BoM, why leave the LDS church?

The simple answer?

Precisely because I DO believe in the Book of Mormon.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I don't believe my view denigrates Joseph Smith in the least. Instead of declaring him a lying, hypocritical, perjurer- as a belief in his teaching/practice of polygamy would do- I believe he was honest when he declared he was innocent of polygamy or any associated practice, and had only one wife- Emma.

So how do you explain the 23 other wives he has sealed to him besides Emma?

[LDS Guy 1986]

On the underlined portion I agree- as I believe Joseph never taught or practiced it. I invite you to actually read the copious research Richard Price has done, instead of dogmatically defending early Mormon errors.

So who wrote Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church (not RLDS D&C)?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So how do you explain the 23 other wives he has sealed to him besides Emma?

It was an invention out of whole cloth made up by leading men in Utah- who happened to be married to the very women making the claim they were previously married to Joseph.

I have tried to make this simple for you and for me... follow the first link on my signature and read for yourself. If you are secure in your belief in polygamy you should have no problem reading Price's work.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So who wrote Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church (not RLDS D&C)?

Not Joseph.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am not disputing that people may have been told this in prepration to giving talks. I have never once heard this, though. I am not aware of any offical statement either. The good news is that he seems to have changed his story form "members should not study previous editions" to "Members should not give talks using those previous editions".

I see the wisdom in using current editions while giving talks.

However, I would not bat an eye if some one quoted from the 1830 edition. Infact just last year our sunday school teach Elder's Quorum teacher read some verse from the 1830 edition. Guess what? He is still active and in good standing. We even discussed some of the changes. In fact we discussed the change from White to pure. Oooooooh, the cover up.

I don't think you can face any punishment for using older editions, it is use the recommendation from the leadership, to prevent confusion. Also they like to be able to tell page numbers of scripture to help people find it, and if you are reading from an older edition the numbering isn't the same.

I know it is something I have been told before by ward leadership about preparing lessons for Gospel Essentials class, and I know they mentioned it again when I was asked to prepare a talk last November on gratitude.

I feel it is more about reducing confusion instead of "covering up" things like some like to think. For personal study any edition is fine to use, and it is ok to use non LDS holy bibles and non KJV bibles to study as well. I perfer the LDS KJV of the Holy Bible personally, but there is not requirements for study only for talks and teaching lessons, and this is probably done on a stake level not a church level.

Also obviously if you are preparing a lesson on the change from the 1830 edition of white to pure you need to reference the 1830 edition! This is perfectly ok, they do not like people to teach a lesson from the 1830 edition but if the lesson is on something from the 1830 edition then you obviously need to us the 1830 edition for that part of the class. This is acceptable 110% in my opinion for Elder's Quorum or Relief Society (in the context you mentioned), to use the 1830 edition for Sunday School or a talk though is a different story.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Not Joseph.

So, they forged his handwriting, and faked the authenticity of the Section 132, while Joseph Smith was still alive, to try and start polygamy under Joseph Smith's nose, to then openly teach it after his death a year later, even though they had been practicing it since 1831 and had it published the revelation in 1843 (without Smith knowing of the fake revelation or the practice of polygamy at all)?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, they forged his handwriting, and faked the authenticity of the Section 132, while Joseph Smith was still alive, to try and start polygamy under Joseph Smith's nose, to then openly teach it after his death a years later, even though they had been practicing it since 1831 and had it published since 1843?

CFR that D&C 132 is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. That is a claim I have never even seen LDS historians make.

Practicing it since 1831? Published in 1843??? Where do you come up with your information?

[LDS Guy 1986]

It was an invention out of whole cloth made up by leading men in Utah- who happened to be married to the very women making the claim they were previously married to Joseph.

I have tried to make this simple for you and for me... follow the first link on my signature and read for yourself. If you are secure in your belief in polygamy you should have no problem reading Price's work.

I will read your link, but this is a lot of forgery and depict to fool the majority of the membership of the Church after Joseph Died.

President Young: "We are hear to mourn the death of Brother Joseph, and tell you that for the last 13 years he took another 23 wives after receiving revelation to God that he recorded last year but we never told you about any of this till now, after his death?"

If they tried to introduce Smith's wives and Section 132 after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844 they would be not LDS Church. There is even stories of Emma attacking some of Joseph's other wives after discovering them embracing inside there house, is this all forgery too?

It seems like the biggest hoax of all time, and something for the National Enquirer, IMO.

[LDS Guy 1986]

CFR that D&C 132 is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. That is a claim I have never even seen LDS historians make.

Practicing it since 1831? Published in 1843??? Where do you come up with your information?

http://lds.org/scrip...dc/132?lang=eng

also: https://www.familysearch.org/s/treeDetails/show?uri=http://tree.familysearch.org:8080/www-af-webservice/person/7762167&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D

has the records of the sealing of him to multiple of his wives, in Nauvoo.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

http://lds.org/scrip...dc/132?lang=eng

Even that spurious introduction makes no claim it was practiced since 1831, only that Joseph supposedly "knew of the practice".

CFR on the handwriting thing.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will read your link, but this is a lot of forgery and depict to fool the majority of the membership of the Church after Joseph Died.

President Young: "We are hear to mourn the death of Brother Joseph, and tell you that for the last 13 years he took another 23 wives after receiving revelation to God that he recorded last year but we never told you about any of this till now, after his death?"

If they tried to introduce Smith's wives and Section 132 after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844 they would be not LDS Church. There is even stories of Emma attacking some of Joseph's other wives after discovering them embracing inside there house, is this all forgery too?

It seems like the biggest hoax of all time, and something for the National Enquirer, IMO.

Just read the link.

And, yes, I believe they lied about Emma. But you will read that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

http://lds.org/scrip...dc/132?lang=eng

also: https://www.familyse...56iYku8TUc%253D

has the records of the sealing of him to multiple of his wives, in Nauvoo.

Of course LDS genealogical resource Family Search will list his supposed "plural wives", they are LDS, it is to be expected.

Records recorded after the fact and after Joseph's death.

Read the link, bro.