Speaking Of New Scriptures Dot Dot Dot-New English Scriptures

[Duncan]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/press?lang=eng

something!

[cinepro]

It says they've made improvements to the maps. Hopefully they finally got around to putting in the maps for The Book of Mormon.

[Nevo]

The new introductions to the Official Declarations are pretty interesting (OD1, OD2).

[Duncan]

The new introductions to the Official Declarations are pretty interesting (OD1, OD2).

read the bit about the Book of Abraham as well, I dunno if that is a game changer or not but there it is

[Nevo]

Some very interesting new material added to the introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledging changes and expansions in the revelations:

Joseph and the early Saints viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and

subject to refinement with additional revelation

. They also recognized that unintentional errors had likely occurred through the process of copying the revelations and preparing them for publication. Thus, a Church conference asked Joseph Smith in 1831 to “correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit.” . . . To again correct errors, clarify wording,

and recognize developments in Church doctrine and organization

, Joseph Smith oversaw the editing of the text of some revelations to prepare them for publication in 1835 as the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

And some section headings have had new historical background information added. So, for example, the heading to section 87 mentions the Nullification Crisis and the heading for section 98 contextualizes the mob violence in Missouri ("Increased settlement of Church members in Missouri troubled some other settlers, who felt threatened by the Saints’ numbers, political and economic influence, and cultural and religious differences").

[Calm]

The Church plans to release printed copies of the new edition beginning in August 2013. Because the new edition maintains the pagination and font style of the earlier edition, most members will notice little if any difference.

[Nevo]

read the bit about the Book of Abraham as well, I dunno if that is a game changer or not but there it is

Yes, that is interesting. Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is now divorced from the papyri.

The 1981 version described the Book of Abraham as "a translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham."

Now it reads: "An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."

[Tacenda]

Yes, that is interesting. Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is now divorced from the papyri.

The 1981 version described the Book of Abraham as "a translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham."

Now it reads: "An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."

That speaks volumes, faith, church leaders, faith. Edited March 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[Buckeye]

Yes, that is interesting. Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is now divorced from the papyri.

The 1981 version described the Book of Abraham as "a translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham."

Now it reads: "An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."

Seems awfully similar to Cinepro's suggestion made just 6 days ago in:

The Cinepro Solution For "The Book Of Abraham"

Since Cinepro is not one to sing his own praises, allow a few of my friends:

[cdowis]

The church has taken a neutral position on the issue of the translation of the BOA, similar to the issue of the location of BOM geography.

It is an issue subject to research and individual conclusions, and not a doctrinal issue.

Before I shout his praises, I make note that the facsimiles are still there, unchanged. The BOA is still tied to the BOD, and this merely clarifies the translation process and the exact relationship with the BOA. It certainly is not a "game changer", unless I am missing something here.

Edited March 1, 2013 by cdowis

[David T]

No blood before the fall was removed from 'fall of Adam, bible dictionary entry.

[Buckeye]

The church has taken a neutral position on the issue of the translation of the BOA, similar to the issue of the location of BOM geography.

It is an issue subject to research and individual conclusions, and not a doctrinal issue. Are not the figures still there?

The figures are still there as far as I can tell. So they didn't pull a "full cinepro".

I agree with you about the "neutral position". But that is still a very big deal. A member can now defensibly tell his bishop "I believe in the BOA, but I do not believe Joseph translated it from the papyri". Yesterday that view could have been problematic. Likewise, a member can now tell her bishop "I do not believe the priesthood ban was God's will". Yesterday that was not as easy to do.

I understand and applaud moves like this. They have a lot of advantages. Keep the tent big and allow a plethora of views to remain. But at the same time, we must realize the downside from "we don't know". Bishops will have a harder time instructing their members on the doctrine of the church. And there is the ever-present question of "well, if God is speaking today as much as he was to Brigham or JFS, then why the heck don't we know?"

Edited March 1, 2013 by Buckeye

[Duncan]

No blood before the fall was removed from 'fall of Adam, bible dictionary entry.

yes, that is very interesting!

Edited March 1, 2013 by Duncan

[Saints Alive]

The OD1 intro is very interesting...

[De Groote]

Looks like Royal Skousen has another edition of the Book of Mormon to examine.

I wonder how much of his work is reflected in the new edition of the Book of Mormon.

[Buckeye]

No blood before the fall was removed from 'fall of Adam, bible dictionary entry.

BYU's biology department should be happy. I wonder if Elder Nelson will address this? He was the last one to teach "no blood before the fall" in conference - though that was nearly 20 years ago.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Oh, these little updates are doing my heart good.

[mapman]

This is really cool! I'm especially glad about the improvements in the Doctrine and Covenants. I think that it will help members to understand our history better.