Polygamy revelation given to President Taylor in 1886

[Calm]

Call for references.  While it can be used for "support your claim with actual sources", it can also mean "provide more information/documentation" which is what I use generally use it for (satisfying curiosity as opposed to establishing accuracy of claims).

Edited December 18, 2015 by Calm

[phaedrus ut]

Is a revelation received by the Prophet but not presented to the church still a revelation from God? 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Call for references.  While it can be used for "support your claim with actual sources", it can also mean "provide more information/documentation" which is what I use generally use it for (satisfying curiosity as opposed to establishing accuracy of claims).

Thanks, that was bugging me!  :-)  

[consiglieri]

32 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Is a revelation received by the Prophet but not presented to the church still a revelation from God? 

How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?

[Coreyb]

John W. Taylor was not excommunicated for believing this revelation but for taking another wife and refusing to tell the quorum of the twelve any of the details and for refusing to give them any information on other new plural marriages that they were investigating. He used the revelation to theologically justify his actions. His trial before the quorum was the first time the revelation had been presented to them, but Joseph Fielding Smith recieved a copy an unknown time before that. I think everyone should read John W. Taylor's trial minutes because they are fascinating. They can be found on Mormon Polygamy Documents.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Is a revelation received by the Prophet but not presented to the church still a revelation from God?

Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

[Cold Steel]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's been shown to be in President Taylor's handwriting. Even FairMormon concede "it's probably genuine".

 

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Handwriting analysis easily confirms the revelation was written by President John Taylor. I don't know who signs pages of journal but I think the point that the "revelation" wasn't shared and therefore may have been just a personal revelation or belief, is important to consider.

I bolded this inflammatory section because this could also apply to LDS Mormons. (Honesty in history and claims, ruthless- study up about LDS violence in Missouri/Illinois and early Utah, The "not [too] bright" is totally subjective)

When I said not too bright, I meant that their knowledge of doctrine and history was way off the mark and that their intelligence levels seemed compromised -- something one can tell it when one listens to them. With LDS Mormons, I don't usually find signs of genetic overlap, nor do they seem to show the same indications of utter social abandonment. Most latter-day saints, in my experience, simply don't seriously read or study their religion. They watch videos and follow manuals. But this is a problem all over the United States and it reaches into Harvard, Yale and other great institutes of learning -- and despite their flaws, Mormons are better than most. But when I see some go up against seasoned anti-Mormons, I cringe because they aren't up to it. I'm not sure what you meant by "study up about LDS violence in Missouri/Illinois and early Utah." Apparently you believe the Mormons were spreading violence among the people who were murdering and raping them? Or that somehow it wasn't understandable?

I'm never the one to advocate violence in any situation, nor do I believe in murder under any circumstance; however, I am willing to let the Lord judge as He will, and if He finds faults with His people as in times past, it's between Him and them. Judging from the horrendous treatment the saints suffered under the hands of their enemies, and the horrors subsequently unleashed upon them my Union troops operating under General Order #11 during the War, I'd have to say the Lord's judgments were against those who murdered, raped, pillaged and stole the lands and properties of the saints and the Church of those days. And if there is fault with us, then God judge. 

Regarding the revelation of 1886, it was produced by John Taylor's son after Taylor's death. John Taylor never signed it, never referred to it in his journal, never submitted it to the church for canonization. There's a write-up about it here, giving two interpretations. Based on Jacob 2, I'd have to believe that a sustained practice of plural marriage would not have been in the church's interest, nor consistent with the gospel. And if the church is what it claims, it's overwhelmingly likely the LDS interpretation is correct.

And if it isn't, it hardly matters.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

 Based on Jacob 2, I'd have to believe that a sustained practice of plural marriage would not have been in the church's interest, nor consistent with the gospel. And if the church is what it claims, it's overwhelmingly likely the LDS interpretation is correct.

And if it isn't, it hardly matters.

 

Plural Marriage was only a law of the Church from 1852-1890.   But it existed outside of Church jurisdiction (and common consent laws) from the early 1840s till 1852, and from 1890 till 1904.

Some things are Church.  Some things are priesthood.  Sometimes they coincide.  Sometimes they don't.  Jacob 2 is an example of a priesthood ordinance being withdrawn from a body of people.  So is the manifesto, in this case the Church body.  But the priesthood laws behind the practice still remain and as per Jacob 2 God can command it any time he sees fit, whether it is given to the Church AND the priesthood as in 1852, or the priesthood only (the anointed quorum) as in 1842.

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Coreyb]

2 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

 

When I said not too bright, I meant that their knowledge of doctrine and history was way off the mark and that their intelligence levels seemed compromised -- something one can tell it when one listens to them. With LDS Mormons, I don't usually find signs of genetic overlap, nor do they seem to show the same indications of utter social abandonment. Most latter-day saints, in my experience, simply don't seriously read or study their religion. They watch videos and follow manuals. But this is a problem all over the United States and it reaches into Harvard, Yale and other great institutes of learning -- and despite their flaws, Mormons are better than most. But when I see some go up against seasoned anti-Mormons, I cringe because they aren't up to it. I'm not sure what you meant by "study up about LDS violence in Missouri/Illinois and early Utah." Apparently you believe the Mormons were spreading violence among the people who were murdering and raping them? Or that somehow it wasn't understandable?

I'm never the one to advocate violence in any situation, nor do I believe in murder under any circumstance; however, I am willing to let the Lord judge as He will, and if He finds faults with His people as in times past, it's between Him and them. Judging from the horrendous treatment the saints suffered under the hands of their enemies, and the horrors subsequently unleashed upon them my Union troops operating under General Order #11 during the War, I'd have to say the Lord's judgments were against those who murdered, raped, pillaged and stole the lands and properties of the saints and the Church of those days. And if there is fault with us, then God judge. 

Regarding the revelation of 1886, it was produced by John Taylor's son after Taylor's death. John Taylor never signed it, never referred to it in his journal, never submitted it to the church for canonization. There's a write-up about it here, giving two interpretations. Based on Jacob 2, I'd have to believe that a sustained practice of plural marriage would not have been in the church's interest, nor consistent with the gospel. And if the church is what it claims, it's overwhelmingly likely the LDS interpretation is correct.

And if it isn't, it hardly matters.

your link doesn't support your claim that it was fabricated by John W. There isn't any evidence that he wrote it other than the circumstantial fact that he brought it before the quorum in his defense. His defense was just to show that he was theologically justified, he wasn't even trying to stay in the church. He told them they could excommunicate if they felt they needed to, he wouldn't mind. Besides, the revelation was known about before Taylor's excommunication. Some of the apostles admit in the trial that they heard rumors/had been asked about it in the past. It's style fits very well with John Taylor Sr.'s other recorded revelations.

[omni]

This seems odd that this wouldn't be considered revelation by the faithful because it wasn't canonized.  Do the prophets have a habit of writing doctrinal pronouncements in the voice of the Lord when they are simply "speaking as a man"?

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

 

1-When I said not too bright, I meant that their knowledge of doctrine and history was way off the mark and that their intelligence levels seemed compromised -- something one can tell it when one listens to them. With LDS Mormons, I don't usually find signs of genetic overlap, nor do they seem to show the same indications of utter social abandonment. Most latter-day saints, in my experience, simply don't seriously read or study their religion. They watch videos and follow manuals. But this is a problem all over the United States and it reaches into Harvard, Yale and other great institutes of learning -- and despite their flaws, Mormons are better than most. But when I see some go up against seasoned anti-Mormons, I cringe because they aren't up to it. 2- I'm not sure what you meant by "study up about LDS violence in Missouri/Illinois and early Utah." Apparently you believe the Mormons were spreading violence among the people who were murdering and raping them? Or that somehow it wasn't understandable?

I'm never the one to advocate violence in any situation, nor do I believe in murder under any circumstance; however, I am willing to let the Lord judge as He will, and if He finds faults with His people as in times past, it's between Him and them. Judging from the horrendous treatment the saints suffered under the hands of their enemies, and the horrors subsequently unleashed upon them my Union troops operating under General Order #11 during the War, I'd have to say the Lord's judgments were against those who murdered, raped, pillaged and stole the lands and properties of the saints and the Church of those days. And if there is fault with us, then God judge. 

3- Regarding the revelation of 1886, it was produced by John Taylor's son after Taylor's death. John Taylor never signed it, never referred to it in his journal, never submitted it to the church for canonization. There's a write-up about it here, giving two interpretations. Based on Jacob 2, I'd have to believe that a sustained practice of plural marriage would not have been in the church's interest, nor consistent with the gospel. And if the church is what it claims, it's overwhelmingly likely the LDS interpretation is correct.

And if it isn't, it hardly matters.

 

*Numbered and bolded to respond-

1- Yes. I understood your correctly. That is what "not too bright" generally means. I find it condescending and hypocritical to label an entire group as not too bright when our group could largely be viewed the same way.

2- Yes. Mormons in Missouri and Illinois and early Utah were involved in some heinous acts of violence. The church essay on violence in Missouri is a basic place to start. Learn about the Danites burning homes and acting as a mob in Missouri. Learn about castrations and murders in Utah. Obviously the violence wasn't universal but it has a significant place in our history. So if you're going to accuse others, you may want to be aware of our own history with such things.

3- I have no dog in this fight so have no intention of defending the fundamentalists. However, it seems clear that Taylor wrote the revelation and it reflected his attitude and beliefs taught at other times so it's not hard to picture him writing it. The question is whether or not it was a revelation like Taylor thought or if it was his personal opinion he misinterpreted as a revelation. Neither possibility fills me with  confidence.

 

[Coreyb]

You should produce some evidence that one group of people is not very bright before making a claim like that. Even if you were right about the FLDS, lots of fundamentalist groups and independents believe in Lorin Woolley's later account about the origins of the revelation. Should we assume all these folks are "not too bright" as well? I have met and spoken with Anne Wilde who is an independent fundamentalist that accepts the story. She seemed rather bright.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Coreyb said:

You should produce some evidence that one group of people is not very bright before making a claim like that. Even if you were right about the FLDS, lots of fundamentalist groups and independents believe in Lorin Woolley's later account about the origins of the revelation. Should we assume all these folks are "not too bright" as well? I have met and spoken with Anne Wilde who is an independent fundamentalist that accepts the story. She seemed rather bright.

I also know several fundamentalists from my area.  They count among them doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers, computer programmers, schoolteachers, realtors.  All very educated, intelligent people.

Your doctor could be a polygamist and you'd never know.

Edited December 19, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Cold Steel]

13 hours ago, Coreyb said:

Your link doesn't support your claim that it was fabricated by John W. There isn't any evidence that he wrote it other than the circumstantial fact that he brought it before the quorum in his defense. His defense was just to show that he was theologically justified, he wasn't even trying to stay in the church. He told them they could excommunicate if they felt they needed to, he wouldn't mind. Besides, the revelation was known about before Taylor's excommunication. Some of the apostles admit in the trial that they heard rumors/had been asked about it in the past. It's style fits very well with John Taylor Sr.'s other recorded revelations.

I never said it was fabricated by John W. I mean, it's a possibility, but it also could have been produced by someone else or written by President Taylor himself, which now appears to be the majority opinion. It's odd that he never elaborated on it. Had it applies to plural marriage, I would think he would have revealed it to the church. But it appears to elaborate on the difference between commandments and covenants. (See below.)

 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

*Numbered and bolded to respond-

1- Yes. I understood your correctly. That is what "not too bright" generally means. I find it condescending and hypocritical to label an entire group as not too bright when our group could largely be viewed the same way.

2- Yes. Mormons in Missouri and Illinois and early Utah were involved in some heinous acts of violence. The church essay on violence in Missouri is a basic place to start. Learn about the Danites burning homes and acting as a mob in Missouri. Learn about castrations and murders in Utah. Obviously the violence wasn't universal but it has a significant place in our history. So if you're going to accuse others, you may want to be aware of our own history with such things.

3- I have no dog in this fight so have no intention of defending the fundamentalists. However, it seems clear that Taylor wrote the revelation and it reflected his attitude and beliefs taught at other times so it's not hard to picture him writing it. The question is whether or not it was a revelation like Taylor thought or if it was his personal opinion he misinterpreted as a revelation. Neither possibility fills me with  confidence.

1. See article:  Polygamist Community Faces Rare Genetic Disorder

I never label an entire community as anything. Ervil LeBaron obviously was bright; he also was demented, pathological and very dangerous, and he had poor judgment. Many members of these groups are suffering from Fumarase Deficiency, an enzyme irregularity that results in severe mental retardation and is caused by inbreeding. According to Dr. Theodore Tarby, a pediatric neurologist cited in the article, "Arizona has about half the world's population of known Fumarase Deficiency patients. It exists in a certain percentage of the broader population but once you get a tendency to inbreed you're inbreeding people who have the r gene there, so you markedly increase the risk of developing the condition."  See this from THE MORMON CHRONICLE.

2. "Mormons in Missouri and Illinois and early Utah were involved in some heinous acts of violence." So what is your point? This is like saying that American soldiers sometime commit atrocities against ISIS. Our critics are quick to concentrate on the Mountain Meadows massacre, but are completely disinterested in the Haun's Mill massacre. By far the greatest, most horrific, offenses were against the latter-day saints just as the offenses against the innocents by ISIS far outweigh any offenses it's enemies commit against it. As I stated earlier, the Lord's wrath against those who offended the saints in Missouri during the "Civil War" was far greater than any recompense against the saints by heaven. In fact, I know of none. The saints weren't perfect, just as ancient Israel wasn't blameless under Moses, and in certain situations it was understandable. But what is its significance?

3. Also, as I stated earlier, if the revelation is legitimate, it ought to be taken seriously. The argument put forth by the fundies is that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is plural marriage, and we LDS reject that. Just as the new and everlasting covenant of marriage could exist under the Nephite civilization and strict monogamy, so can it be fully applicable to our monogamous society. But if we're right about this and the fundies are wrong, then what was the question President Taylor put to the Lord? If he was asking if an end to plural marriage would bring an end to eternal "celestial" marriage, the reply would mean one thing. If he was asking if plural marriage, as part of the new and everlasting covenant, could be eliminated, or done away with, it would mean another. We only know that the Lord states: "You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people."  The Lord then points out, significantly, "All commandments...must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and [but] how can I revoke an everlasting covenant?" Commandments can, and sometimes are, abrogated by God or through his servants ("my authority"). But covenants are binding upon all parties and cannot be revoked. The prophets have always said the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is eternal marriage. But plural marriage is not a covenant, but a commandment. And according to Jacob, that commandment can only be invoked and revoked by God's direct decree, and is only for the purpose of raising up seed. If not so, he wrote, they would hearken to wicked practices. If the revelation is valid, it should be understood in context. Taylor also is said to have written a vision that was recorded by Wilford Woodruff, yet Woodruff never actually provides attribution. Strange.

 

2 hours ago, Coreyb said:

You should produce some evidence that one group of people is not very bright before making a claim like that. Even if you were right about the FLDS, lots of fundamentalist groups and independents believe in Lorin Woolley's later account about the origins of the revelation. Should we assume all these folks are "not too bright" as well? I have met and spoken with Anne Wilde who is an independent fundamentalist that accepts the story. She seemed rather bright.

SEE references above. 

 

 

[Cold Steel]

13 hours ago, Coreyb said:

Your link doesn't support your claim that it was fabricated by John W. There isn't any evidence that he wrote it other than the circumstantial fact that he brought it before the quorum in his defense. His defense was just to show that he was theologically justified, he wasn't even trying to stay in the church. He told them they could excommunicate if they felt they needed to, he wouldn't mind. Besides, the revelation was known about before Taylor's excommunication. Some of the apostles admit in the trial that they heard rumors/had been asked about it in the past. It's style fits very well with John Taylor Sr.'s other recorded revelations.

I never said it was fabricated by John W. I mean, it's a possibility, but it also could have been produced by someone else or written by President Taylor himself, which now appears to be the majority opinion. It's odd that he never elaborated on it. Had it applies to plural marriage, I would think he would have revealed it to the church. But it appears to elaborate on the difference between commandments and covenants. (See below.)

 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

*Numbered and bolded to respond-

1- Yes. I understood your correctly. That is what "not too bright" generally means. I find it condescending and hypocritical to label an entire group as not too bright when our group could largely be viewed the same way.

2- Yes. Mormons in Missouri and Illinois and early Utah were involved in some heinous acts of violence. The church essay on violence in Missouri is a basic place to start. Learn about the Danites burning homes and acting as a mob in Missouri. Learn about castrations and murders in Utah. Obviously the violence wasn't universal but it has a significant place in our history. So if you're going to accuse others, you may want to be aware of our own history with such things.

3- I have no dog in this fight so have no intention of defending the fundamentalists. However, it seems clear that Taylor wrote the revelation and it reflected his attitude and beliefs taught at other times so it's not hard to picture him writing it. The question is whether or not it was a revelation like Taylor thought or if it was his personal opinion he misinterpreted as a revelation. Neither possibility fills me with  confidence.

1. See article:  Polygamist Community Faces Rare Genetic Disorder

I never label an entire community as anything. Ervil LeBaron obviously was bright; he also was demented, pathological and very dangerous, and he had poor judgment. Many members of these groups are suffering from Fumarase Deficiency, an enzyme irregularity that results in severe mental retardation and is caused by inbreeding. According to Dr. Theodore Tarby, a pediatric neurologist cited in the article, "Arizona has about half the world's population of known Fumarase Deficiency patients. It exists in a certain percentage of the broader population but once you get a tendency to inbreed you're inbreeding people who have the r gene there, so you markedly increase the risk of developing the condition."  See this from THE MORMON CHRONICLE.

2. "Mormons in Missouri and Illinois and early Utah were involved in some heinous acts of violence." So what is your point? This is like saying that American soldiers sometime commit atrocities against ISIS. Our critics are quick to concentrate on the Mountain Meadows massacre, but are completely disinterested in the Haun's Mill massacre. By far the greatest, most horrific, offenses were against the latter-day saints just as the offenses against the innocents by ISIS far outweigh any offenses it's enemies commit against it. As I stated earlier, the Lord's wrath against those who offended the saints in Missouri during the "Civil War" was far greater than any recompense against the saints by heaven. In fact, I know of none. The saints weren't perfect, just as ancient Israel wasn't blameless under Moses, and in certain situations it was understandable. But what is its significance?

3. Also, as I stated earlier, if the revelation is legitimate, it ought to be taken seriously. The argument put forth by the fundies is that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is plural marriage, and we LDS reject that. Just as the new and everlasting covenant of marriage could exist under the Nephite civilization and strict monogamy, so can it be fully applicable to our monogamous society. But if we're right about this and the fundies are wrong, then what was the question President Taylor put to the Lord? If he was asking if an end to plural marriage would bring an end to eternal "celestial" marriage, the reply would mean one thing. If he was asking if plural marriage, as part of the new and everlasting covenant, could be eliminated, or done away with, it would mean another. We only know that the Lord states: "You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people."  The Lord then points out, significantly, "All commandments...must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and [but] how can I revoke an everlasting covenant?" Commandments can, and sometimes are, abrogated by God or through his servants ("my authority"). But covenants are binding upon all parties and cannot be revoked. The prophets have always said the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is eternal marriage. But plural marriage is not a covenant, but a commandment. And according to Jacob, that commandment can only be invoked and revoked by God's direct decree, and is only for the purpose of raising up seed. If not so, he wrote, they would hearken to wicked practices. If the revelation is valid, it should be understood in context. Taylor also is said to have written a vision that was recorded by Wilford Woodruff, yet Woodruff never actually provides attribution. Strange.

 

2 hours ago, Coreyb said:

You should produce some evidence that one group of people is not very bright before making a claim like that. Even if you were right about the FLDS, lots of fundamentalist groups and independents believe in Lorin Woolley's later account about the origins of the revelation. Should we assume all these folks are "not too bright" as well? I have met and spoken with Anne Wilde who is an independent fundamentalist that accepts the story. She seemed rather bright.

SEE references above. 

 

 

[Cold Steel]

21 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Is a revelation received by the Prophet but not presented to the church still a revelation from God? 

Yes. But before the people are bound by the revelation, it is to be formally presented and accepted. If, for example, the Lord revealed that there are trillions of universes in the Cosmos, it would be knowledge, but would not need to be canonized because it doesn't require any action on our parts. Also, if the Lord commands we build a temple, we need not take action because it's not up to us to take any action. But if the revelation requires that we not eat donuts on pain of being stoned, then the people would have to acknowledge it for it to be binding.

In less formal cases, such as the Zion's Camp march, when the guys were complaining about the conditions, swearing and criticizing the prophet, Joseph warns them several times that they may incur the wrath of the Lord. They persisted and Joseph warned them again. There was fatigue, but there had been no illness, Elder Woodruff later recalled. But suddenly sickness entered the camp and fifteen people died. And when Joseph and Hyrum attempted to administer to them, they were immediately smitten and were nearly overcome. Thus, on smaller scales, revelation need not be so formal. The warning came, the people heard it, refused to conform and were penalized. And as in the case of Moses, the Lord, I suppose, expected the prophets to side with Him. By attempting to administer to those who offended the Lord, Joseph and Hyrum were, I think, on thin ice. 

This lesson, btw, was used by Brigham and others who did not want a repeat of that event. I think that's why he urged them to sing, dance and praise the Lord for their salvation on the journey westward. 

 

[Tony Frank]

Nothing in the revelation states that a man must have more than one wife to receive celestial glory.

[JLHPROF]

17 hours ago, Tony Frank said:

Nothing in the revelation states that a man must have more than one wife to receive celestial glory.

No, but under the original (pre-1920s interpretation) D&C 131 and D&C 132:3 take care of that.

And this 1886 revelation clearly identifies the New and Everlasting Covenants of Marriage as plural marriage.  Unless when the Lord says "great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law" means many Church members in 1886 were neglecting to get married in the temples.

Assuming they were getting married in the temple, it must be something else they were neglecting to observe, leading to the Lord commanding them "if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham" which D&C 132:32-34 defines as plural marriage.

So maybe it DOES state that a man must have more than one wife to receive Celestial glory.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 5:33 AM, hope_for_things said:

I believe they found the 1833 BoC version of this revelation, correct me if I'm wrong and they found a hand written earlier dated version.  With the original revelation first given in 1829, what changes were made from the original 1829 time period until they prepared the revelation for publishing in 1833 is anyone's guess.

IOW, if the evidence doesn't support your conclusions, someone must have tampered with the evidence.

Got it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 5:55 AM, stemelbow said:

I would say moreso then than now, "revelation" was a word attributed to presumptuous thoughts.  It still happens, I think, but it was more common 130 years ago.  I can't really fault them for being expectedly weak on these matters.

"Expectedly weak?"

Could you be more patronising and condescending towards them if you tried?

"Presumptuous thoughts?" You mean -- like those in evidence in your posts?

I'm sure that if I were to point out that your position is an apostate one, someone would have a hissy fit and go crying to the mods.

So I won't.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 12/20/2015 at 11:40 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

IOW, if the evidence doesn't support your conclusions, someone must have tampered with the evidence.

Got it.

 

Just research the history.  1833 BoC contains a lot of modifications from the original revelations.  1835 D&C also modified many of the 1833 BoC revelations.  You can call that tampering, some members thought as much and left the church over it.  Others were okay with the changes and accepted the idea that Joseph's theological concepts were evolving and changing over time.  

Modern Mormons for the most part don't know about all the changes that occurred.  Many modern members just assume that only grammatical errors or punctuation were changed.  Many also have a false perception that doctrines never change, have been the same throughout history and will continue to be the same in the future.  This is unfortunate and ignorant of reality.  The history is readily available for those that want to study it nowadays.  

 

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just research the history.  1833 BoC contains a lot of modifications from the original revelations.  1835 D&C also modified many of the 1833 BoC revelations.  You can call that tampering, some members thought as much and left the church over it.  Others were okay with the changes and accepted the idea that Joseph's theological concepts were evolving and changing over time.  

Modern Mormons for the most part don't know about all the changes that occurred.  Many modern members just assume that only grammatical errors or punctuation were changed.  Many also have a false perception that doctrines never change, have been the same throughout history and will continue to be the same in the future.  This is unfortunate and ignorant of reality.  The history is readily available for those that want to study it nowadays.  

 

But that's entirely beside the point.

Whether several, or even many, sections were altered between being first written and subsequently published does not give you a blank cheque to freely reimagine a given revelation to resemble what you want it to be.

The problem you have is that a contemporary autographic source for the revelation differs importantly from late, hostile memories of it.

That contemporary autographic source is the evidence.

Your willingness to throw the contemporary written evidence under the bus merely demonstrates your emotional attachment to those late, hostile memories.

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But that's entirely beside the point.

Whether several, or even many, sections were altered between being first written and subsequently published does not give you a blank cheque to freely reimagine a given revelation to resemble what you want it to be.

The problem you have is that a contemporary autographic source for the revelation differs importantly from late, hostile memories of it.

That contemporary autographic source is the evidence.

Your willingness to throw the contemporary written evidence under the bus merely demonstrates your emotional attachment to those late, hostile memories.

Its not besides the point when there is ample evidence of other changes being made during this same period of time to clean up the narrative.  Also, I don't think its fair to label Whitmer's accounting as "hostile memories".  Whitmer's late statements are frequently used as support for LDS narratives.  Its not fair to pick and choose ones to use and outright dismiss others that don't fit your perspective.  

I don't have proof that the revelation was changed, but you don't have proof that it wasn't.  There is ample evidence from my perspective that allows my interpretation as a possibility here. I'm not throwing out the contemporary evidence, I'm just giving a plausible explanation for why it was written that way, based on other similar scenarios as well as the Whitmer accounting.  Unless more evidence surfaces, we're probably not going to agree on this one.  

[oremites]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Whitmer's late statements are frequently used as support for LDS narratives.

Just curious, which late statements of Whitmer's are frequently used as support for LDS narratives?

I'm not an expert on that so I'd genuinely like to know what those statements are.  I'll admit I've dismissed some of David Whitmer's late statements, so it would be good for me to get a different perspective on those.

[hope_for_things]

His witness about the BoM, is probably the most commonly used as well as his statements about the seer stone which were referenced in the most recent article in the Oct Ensign.  You could do a search on LDS.org and find a lot of other references to statements by David Whitmer.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng#footnote26-12460_000_022