Rivers Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I thought that the Proclamation on the family would be canonized in the next edition of the scriptures. I guess I was wrong.
rockpond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I thought that the Proclamation on the family would be canonized in the next edition of the scriptures. I guess I was wrong.Guess for now we'll have to keep placing our bets on what will become Official Declaration 3.
rongo Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I thought that the Proclamation on the family would be canonized in the next edition of the scriptures. I guess I was wrong.I don't think it will be. Does it need to be? I think it has the intended effect just as it is used, and I don't know that it would be any more influential if it was "standard work canonized."
Buckeye Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I don't think it will be. Does it need to be? I think it has the intended effect just as it is used, and I don't know that it would be any more influential if it was "standard work canonized."Do you recall any of the Proclamations issued by the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 in the 165 years prior to the Proclamation on the Family? There were many. Hardly anyone knows anything about them, particularly new members of the church. Canonization matters. How much would Section 137 or 138 be studied by the church body today if they were not canonized in 1981?
Duncan Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Do you recall any of the Proclamations issued by the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 in the 165 years prior to the Proclamation on the Family? There were many. Hardly anyone knows anything about them, particularly new members of the church.Canonization matters. How much would Section 137 or 138 be studied by the church body today if they were not canonized in 1981?that's true. I only have a hazy memory of ones in 1845 and 1907, whether or not they are proclamations or not I dunno
Buckeye Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) One of my favorites is the "Proclamation on the Economy" - ok, admittedly not a Proclamation, but an "Apostolic Circular" signed by BY, the rest of the first presidency and the members of the Q12 residing stateside in 1875. You can google the document, which begins with this language:THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKINDhas shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force. Guess how many members have this document hanging on their living room wall? No many. If they did, I imagine Utah may have voted a little different in the last election. Again, canonization matters. Edited March 2, 2013 by Buckeye 4
Ahab Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 One of my favorites is the "Proclamation on the Economy" - ok, admittedly not a Proclamation, but an "Apostolic Circular" signed by BY, the rest of the first presidency and the members of the Q12 residing stateside in 1875. You can google the document, which begins with this language:Guess how many members have this document hanging on their living room wall? No many. If they did, I imagine Utah may have voted a little different in the last election. Again, canonization matters. Let's put it up for a vote now, then. We're the ones who make it official once our leaders sign off on it, aren't we?Or does someone have to pay extra for another book separated from the "standard" works, by whatever name we would call it.Has anyone in the Church collected all of those teachings and put them into another book, or some other books, yet?Oh Deseret! Are you reading this? You may have a revenue opportunity here!
juliann Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) It calls the ban a "practice" not a "doctrine", nor does it say the "practice" came from God. On the other hand, it does not say that the practice was not doctrine, nor does it say that the practice did not come from God. So the heading allows us to continue with our own interpretations, with the Church being neutral (other than the institutional Church no longer claims that as having been doctrine or revealed).Hmmmm...... I'd say that the church officially calling anything a "practice" presents a huge problem for anyone wanting to correct them by changing practice to doctrine. Edited March 2, 2013 by juliann
Ahab Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Hmmmm...... I'd say that the church officially calling anything a "practice" presents a huge problem for anyone wanting to correct them by changing practice to doctrine.A practice supported by doctrine. There. Is that better for you?
juliann Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 A practice supported by doctrine. There. Is that better for you?Sure, just as soon as they say it. And that is not just better but best for everyone who claims to follow living prophets.
rockpond Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 A practice supported by doctrine. There. Is that better for you?I'd be careful with that. Remember last year when poor BYU Professor Randy Bott tried providing doctrinal support for the priesthood ban in that newspaper interview (was it WA post?)? As I recall, church PR rebutted it with the "we don't know why there was a ban" statement.
Sky Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 For a side by side comparison of the changes between the 1981 edition and the 2013 edition, see here.
cinepro Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) I think that the updates to the header of OD 2 are great. I'll paste them here as well...I think the updated headings for the Official Declarations, and the change in wording for the explanation of the Book of Abraham, are huge. I'm still a little shocked; it's like getting Christmas in March. Edited March 2, 2013 by cinepro 2
Sky Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Gotta love the updated heading for OD 2! It would have saved me some mental gymnastics had this been around sooner. But it's great to see nonetheless. It even seems to allow for the possibility that the Priesthood restriction may have been a mistake, even though it doesn't say it outright.
canard78 Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 I think this is also an important change:Intro., par. 1, sent. 2—Changed “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” to “a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas,” deleting the in “with the ancient inhabitants” to provide clarity and greater accuracyhttps://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdfI've known members who were convinced that the Book of Mormon was about the only people of the Americas. The removal of the "the" means it's a lot easier to believe we're talking about a minority group.Amazing what a "the" can do. 1
canard78 Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 As reported in the Deseret News.Majority of changes are to study aids (which includes chapter/section summaries). States that the online versions have already been updated.Sure enough, a check of the chapter summary for Alma 11 shows no mention of coins. ;-)Fascinating.-AllenThe online version had changed the Alma 11 chapter heading for some time. But the "coins" were still referenced in the index.Nice to see the index now has:CoinMoney, NephiteWhich links to:<p>Money, NephiteAmnor [money]; Ezrom; Limnah; Money; Onti; Senine; Senum; Seon; Shiblon [money]; Shiblum; ShumNephite money and measures explained: Alma 11:4–19;
BlueDreams Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 I've known members who were convinced that the Book of Mormon was about the only people of the Americas. The removal of the "the" means it's a lot easier to believe we're talking about a minority group.Amazing what a "the" can do.Personally I think this change really drives it home:Intro., par. 2, last sentence—Changed the phrase “they are the principal ancestors” to “they are among the ancestors,” providing clarity and greater accuracy, so that the statement reads: “. . . all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”With luv.BD
why me Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Amazingly, on the Salt Lake Tribune site where it was announced, the comments section is full of hatred toward the lds church, claiming that these changes confirm for them that the church is not true and how glad they are that they left.This will always be a problem. The haters will continue to hate no matter what the lds church does. The lds church cannot win in this 'game'. 1
BlueDreams Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Amazingly, on the Salt Lake Tribune site where it was announced, the comments section is full of hatred toward the lds church, claiming that these changes confirm for them that the church is not true and how glad they are that they left.Wait....you find that amazing? The SLT comments are almost always full with irrational amounts of poorly configured vitriol against whatever the church does. The only thing I found really amazing about it was the consistent basic reasoning (at least on the first page) was just how really really poor the argument was. It was usually along the lines of if God's perfect and is the same today, yesterday, and forever....how could this happen? Which is just a shoddy argument in LDS theology where change, additions, revelation, etc are and obvious integral part of being mormon from the get-goWith luv,BD 1
telnetd Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Amazingly, on the Salt Lake Tribune site where it was announced, the comments section is full of hatred toward the lds church, claiming that these changes confirm for them that the church is not true and how glad they are that they left..I would view these "former Mormons - now Mormon haters" as not honestlylooking at the changes. There are many more changes between the 1830 and 1981 versions of the the Book of Mormon (including the change in the Intro section about the Lamanites), but I have yet to see anything of significancein the 2013 modifications that would alter any teaching or practice of the church (except for maybe less mention on the papyri obtained by Smith).A side by side comparison is posted on their site. Gail
Rivers Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Here's another interesting change in the Bible Dictionary for The Fall of Adam:It previously said," Before the fall, there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations."It now says "There was no sin, no death, and no children.""among any of the earthly creations" has been omitted.The statement about Adam and Eve not having blood has been removed as well.The Bible dictionary was never official doctrine in the first place but this provides a little more wiggle room for those who don't believe there was no death before the fall.The title has also been changed to The Fall of Adam and Eve.The Bible dictionary intro has been shortened up a lot but still clearly states that it is not intended to provide official doctrine. Edited March 2, 2013 by Rivers
why me Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Wait....you find that amazing? The SLT comments are almost always full with irrational amounts of poorly configured vitriol against whatever the church does.With luv,BDI think that what I find amazing is that the same antimormons call for changes in the church. But when a change happens they moan on about it saying that the church is not true because the church issued a change. However, I do believe that most secretly see the changes as a positive but can't seem to admit it. 1
why me Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 I would view these "former Mormons - now Mormon haters" as not honestlylooking at the changes. There are many more changes between the 1830 and 1981 versions of the the Book of Mormon (including the change in the Intro section about the Lamanites), but I have yet to see anything of significancein the 2013 modifications that would alter any teaching or practice of the church (except for maybe less mention on the papyri obtained by Smith).A side by side comparison is posted on their site. GailThey are overstating the changes confusing the scriptures with introductions, commentaries and study aids.
Duncan Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 In 2 Samuel 21:15 it has a period in the middle of the sentence, not sure if they took that out or not
telnetd Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Here's another interesting change in the Bible Dictionary for The Fall of Adam:It previously said," Before the fall, there was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations."It now says "There was no sin, no death, and no children.""among any of the earthly creations" has been omitted.The statement about Adam and Eve not having blood has been removed as well.I think the church is trying to correct the erroneous teaching that some believedthe plants and animals could not procreate before the Fall. They also removed the blood reference from another site that was accessible before.http://scriptures.lds.org/bdf/fllfdm"The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event isrecorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the "forbidden fruit," Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life".You can still find it in Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrine of Salvation, volume 1 -"When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. Therewas no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This istrue of all the other creations”.Gail
Recommended Posts