New Editions Of Scriptures Announced

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Haven't posted for ages, but saw this and immediately went to my pet peeve in the Bible Dictionary to see if it was changed... it wasn't. They obviously only updated LDS theological, not academic historical points. Look up Baal, a rather important figure in the Old Testament. Note it says he was a sun god. He wasn't. It is at least a century out of date. As an OT academic, it drives me nuts.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baal?lang=eng&letter=b

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

The other changes look good. I just wish the academic historical elements would be updated. They give a lot of bad info and that leads to misinformed church talks and classes. And yes, I have sat through a class about how Baal was a sun god, and people chose the false light versus the light of Christ.:-)

[Rivers]

Maybe that will get fixed in the next edition.

[Nevo]

Haven't posted for ages, but saw this and immediately went to my pet peeve in the Bible Dictionary to see if it was changed... it wasn't. They obviously only updated LDS theological, not academic historical points. Look up Baal, a rather important figure in the Old Testament. Note it says he was a sun god. He wasn't. It is at least a century out of date. As an OT academic, it drives me nuts.

I feel your pain. At least the old Bible Dictionary preface contained the statement "If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary" (i.e., the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). Unfortunately that excellent piece of advice was left out of the new revision.

[mapman]

Since the church is moving towards having their publications being primarily online (eg the new youth curriculum), does that mean that new editions of the scriptures might become more common?

[David T]

Map man - I believe so. Remember, we already had a beta interim adjusted BOM online for a couple years now, without any fanfare.

[tyler90az]

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.

I am a bit confused as to what you are saying. It still says there was no death before the fall for adam and eve? Are you referring to the fact about having no death for any earthly creations? I think you are just want clarification.

This is a good change, have long believed other creations were on earth prior to Adam and Eve. It is not hard for me to believe that evolution is true with the exceptions of humans. That is a discussion for another day though

[Tacenda]

A commenter in the newspaper asked, if the Priesthood Ban wasn't doctrinal why did we need a revelation to change it? Why not say it was a policy that needed changing?

[Duncan]

A commenter in the newspaper asked, if the Priesthood Ban wasn't doctrinal why did we need a revelation to change it? Why not say it was a policy that needed changing?

well, that's the 64 dollar question, what was the origin of it, a revelation or some policy or what?

[cinepro]

A commenter in the newspaper asked, if the Priesthood Ban wasn't doctrinal why did we need a revelation to change it? Why not say it was a policy that needed changing?

While there is a difference between "doctrine" and "policy", I suspect the likelihood for God changing one or the other via revelation isn't one of them.

[Rivers]

well, that's the 64 dollar question, what was the origin of it, a revelation or some policy or what?

I think the church is being honest by saying they don't know.

[Robert F. Smith]

A commenter in the newspaper asked, if the Priesthood Ban wasn't doctrinal why did we need a revelation to change it? Why not say it was a policy that needed changing?

After careful, thorough study, President McKay considered the ban as policy, not doctrine and wanted to make an immediate change and begin missionary work in non-white sections of Africa. However, a top apostle objected that a revelation was necessary. The First Presidency and Twelve put great stock in unanimity, and that is the primary reason why a wait until 1978 was required.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

-Allen

Old fashioned print versions won't be out until this Fall.

Meantime, some expert comments on the sort of changes made (or not made) to the actual text are available on the Interpreter blog at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/royal-skousens-analysis-of-2013-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon/?

.

[Tacenda]

After careful, thorough study, President McKay considered the ban as policy, not doctrine and wanted to make an immediate change and begin missionary work in non-white sections of Africa. However, a top apostle objected that a revelation was necessary. The First Presidency and Twelve put great stock in unanimity, and that is the primary reason why a wait until 1978 was required.

Good to know that one of my all-time favorite prophets tried to institute it as policy and end it sooner. But maybe there was a reason. I went to Sunstone last summer and listened to Marguerite Driessen an African American law professor for BYU. She had the opinion that it was timed perfectly to grant blacks the Priesthood, when it did. That will forever stick in my mind, it's hard to phathom. Maybe I can get a transcript of what she said if there is one, and post it or PM you and see what you think. Edited March 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

http://bycommonconse...rst-presidency/

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency”

And this.....

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once ap- plied to the priesthood.

Is this a problem? Does it look like the church needs to be more forthcoming in their explanations in the new header for the Priesthood Ban?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

Good to know that one of my all-time favorite prophets tried to institute it as policy and end it sooner. But maybe there was a reason. I went to Sunstone last summer and listened to Marguerite Driessen an African American law professor for BYU. She had the opinion that it was timed perfectly to grant blacks the Priesthood, when it did. That will forever stick in my mind, it's hard to phathom. Maybe I can get a transcript of what she said if there is one, and post it or PM you and see what you think.

Yes, I would be very interested in Prof. Driessen's take on it..

Getting back to Pres. McKay: He had even called a mission president for part of Africa, and had to rescind the call when it became apparent that no revelation would be forthcoming. I'm sure that he pleaded with the Lord. It may well be that the Mormon people were not yet ready for it.

I also recall when Pres. McKay came out to the SF Bay area to dedicate the Oakland Temple (1965), he did a press interview with a gaggle of reporters out in the open. One reporter asked when negroes would get the Mormon priesthood, and Pres. McKay replied: "Not in my lifetime, and not in yours." I don't know whether that reporter was still alive in 1978.

[canard78]

After careful, thorough study, President McKay considered the ban as policy, not doctrine and wanted to make an immediate change and begin missionary work in non-white sections of Africa. However, a top apostle objected that a revelation was necessary. The First Presidency and Twelve put great stock in unanimity, and that is the primary reason why a wait until 1978 was required.

The idea that the prophet felt it should be changed that long ago and one of the apostles felt it his place to oppose it makes me feel a little sick. It's a blot on our history that is shameful.

BTW, could I get a CFR on this? I'd be interested to know further details.

[rongo]

The idea that the prophet felt it should be changed that long ago and one of the apostles felt it his place to oppose it makes me feel a little sick. It's a blot on our history that is shameful.

BTW, could I get a CFR on this? I'd be interested to know further details.

I thought it was two apostles, actually.

It harks back to the unanimity clauses in D&C 107 (the QFP, Q12, and Q70 are equal in authority only when they are unanimous as quorums). With one or two firm dissenters in the Q12, they type of unity needed for monumental, weighty, controversial issues was lacking. I think it's a good system (big picture), because it requires complete unanimity, even when we have to wait on things we think should happen ("the way things oughta be"). I think that the civil rights movement and societal changes needed to do heavy lifting before the time was "right," so I don't think the time was right during the 1950s or previous to that.

[theplains]

http://bycommonconse...rst-presidency/

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization,

If the attitude of the church was really a matter of a direct commandment of the Lord,

would it have been mentioned in a General Conference?

A record of all the GCs are online at http://archive.org/d...onferencereport but it

doesn't have a very good search capability.

Thanks,

Jim

[tyler90az]

The First Presidency and Twelve put great stock in unanimity

That is good to hear another witness about unanimity. It may makes change come about slow, but it reassures me that we are more protected.

Edited March 4, 2013 by tyler90az

[cinepro]

If the attitude of the church was really a matter of a direct commandment of the Lord,

would it have been mentioned in a General Conference?

A record of all the GCs are online at http://archive.org/d...onferencereport but it

doesn't have a very good search capability.

Thanks,

Jim

Try this one:

http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/

[cinepro]

However, a top apostle objected that a revelation was necessary. The First Presidency and Twelve put great stock in unanimity, and that is the primary reason why a wait until 1978 was required.

On a totally unrelated note, when the final discussion was made in 1978 regarding the issue, two apostles weren't present and were only appraised of the revelation/decision after the fact. One was sick in the hospital, the other was on assignment on another continent.

God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Edited March 4, 2013 by cinepro

[theplains]

Try this one:

http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/

Great!

Thanks,

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

The idea that the prophet felt it should be changed that long ago and one of the apostles felt it his place to oppose it makes me feel a little sick. It's a blot on our history that is shameful.

BTW, could I get a CFR on this? I'd be interested to know further details.

Multiple private sources have this inside dope, but I am not at liberty to disclose them.

The apostle who required a revelation on the matter may have been correct to do so. He did not oppose the principle. At the Oakland Temple dedication that apostle played piano while his wife sang solo "Bless this House," and "He Who Has Clean Hands and a Pure Heart." She had been an opera singer. It was a lovely dedication. I was deeply impressed that Pres. McKay (who seemed so senile and needed help getting around) came alive under the power of the Holy Spirit to deliver a powerful dedicatory prayer.

[Robert F. Smith]

On a totally unrelated note, when the final discussion was made in 1978 regarding the issue, two apostles weren't present and were only appraised of the revelation/decision after the fact. One was sick in the hospital, the other was on assignment on another continent.

God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Yes, and when that apostle on assignment was notified by phone, he cried.

[Robert F. Smith]

That is good to hear another witness about unanimity. It may makes change come about slow, but it reassures me that we are more protected.

In fact, one president of the Church even said that the very cosmos depends on that unanimity.