Cool Phd Candidate Paper On The Coc/Rlds

[Olavarria]

enjoy

[maklelan]

Cool. I've been trying to find some research on collective memory in Latter-day Saint history to supplement my Psalm 82 paper. This works great.

[cinepro]

Wow. When it comes to the RLDS, I can definitely say I don't have a testimony of the history of the church.

[Stargazer]

I guess prophetic leadership is important after all.

Since the late 1960s, the RLDS have had to deal with the issues of founder Joseph Smith Jr.‘s likely involvement in polygamy, First Counselor Sydney Rigdon‘s relationship with Pittsburgh printer Solomon Spaulding and the resulting questionable authorship of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith‘s treasure-seeking activities before 1830, Smith‘s designation of Adam-Ondi-Ahman (in Northern Missouri) as the original Garden of Eden, the misinterpreted Book of Abraham, the ―one-true church concept promoted by Joseph Smith Jr., and DNA evidence which has been used to refute a historical claim of the Book of Mormon.

So when it came to the heat in the kitchen, they got out instead of standing it.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Stargazer

[Damien the Leper]

This will be a fascinating read. Thanks for the post.

[K-2]

One thing I thought was interesting was how they removed some sections from their D&C, including one that was a direct revelation (LDS D&C 124/CofC D&C 107). What do you all think about the idea of ceasing to acknowledge a revelation from God? Can you imagine the LDS Church ever removing a section from the D&C? Do you think we would ever be in danger of that occurring?

[TAO]

K-2, much of the D&C is from other documents, it isn't a perfect cut-and-paste either, that is, certain parts are included, others are not.

Edited October 22, 2011 by TAO

[Calm]

One thing I thought was interesting was how they removed some sections from their D&C, including one that was a direct revelation (LDS D&C 124/CofC D&C 107). What do you all think about the idea of ceasing to acknowledge a revelation from God? Can you imagine the LDS Church ever removing a section from the D&C? Do you think we would ever be in danger of that occurring?

The lectures on faith were removed from the D&C, wiki says in 1921, but I thought it was earlier than that. There were revelations that never made it into the scriptures as well, can't remember the name of the guy who was trying to collect and publish them all though I have one of his books on my shelves downstairs....think his first name is Fred....just got a flash maybe Fred Collier.

Add-on.....looks like I'm getting some blood sugar to my brain already: http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6218

Edited October 22, 2011 by calmoriah

[Peppermint Patty]

Wow. When it comes to the RLDS, I can definitely say I don't have a testimony of the history of the church.

Yes, when it comes to the RLDS, I can definitely say I don't support the prophet.

[Calm]

I find it rather sad that Roger Launius viewed the lawsuit over the Kirtland temple as more spectacular than the visitations of Christ there.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Monster]

I guess prophetic leadership is important after all.

So when it came to the heat in the kitchen, they got out instead of standing it.

Perhaps the saw the wisdom in avoiding the heat in vain.

[cdowis]

The lectures on faith were removed from the D&C,

Was the Lectures on Faith (1) a direct revelation from God (2) to JS? That is two questions in case you didn't notice.

[Calm]

Not to my knowledge on either....which is likely why they were finally removed IMO.

I was just pointing out there could be valid reasons for removing revelations. Some of the personal ones could be removed without loss of doctrine, for example, and since there were quite a few personal ones that were never included...it could make a lot of sense to do so.

Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah