2013 Edition of LDS Scriptures?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Are there new additions to the D&C? I keep thinking the Proclamation On The Family will be canonized.

I have long wished and hoped that it would be, but I'm thinking now it probably won't.

The reason is that it does not break new ground; rather, it reaffirms, emphasizes and proclaims existing belief and values that were already had among the Latter-day Saints and had long been integral to Mormon belief.

It seems the only time there is new scripture added to the canon is when there is a seminal change or addition to the body of belief among the saints. The cessation of the practice of plural marriage and the lifting of the priesthood ban are the two obvious examples.

Even Sections 137 and 138, which were not canonized until the latter 20th century but had existed long before, solidified knowledge that perhaps had not been generally understood before and perhaps was not clear in the scriptures; i.e. that all who die without a knowledge of the gospel who would have received it had they been permitted to tarry shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God and that Christ, after His resurrection, did not go personally among the those who were in spirit prison, but rather organized His forces and appointed messengers from among the righteous spirits to go and preach to the spirits in prison.

 

[theplains]

On 17/03/2016 at 8:08 PM, Duncan said:

 "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" Pres. Benson

What led the LDS Church to remove that phrase “as does the Bible” from "... and contains 
the fulness of the everlasting gospel" in the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,
Jim

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, theplains said:

What led the LDS Church to remove that phrase “as does the Bible” from "... and contains 
the fulness of the everlasting gospel" in the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon?

Thanks,
Jim

I am not the LDS Church so I have no idea

[maklelan]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

Are there new additions to the D&C? I keep thinking the Proclamation On The Family will be canonized.

No, no additions like that.

[flameburns623]

16 hours ago, maklelan said:

Interesting thread We're currently in the process of updating the existing translations of the scriptures with the 2013 changes, so I've had to stare at tables with every last change on them for some time now. The majority are tiny little formatting things that don't change meaning at all. The biggest changes are the additions of historical introductions to the Official Declarations (which, among other things, acknowledge that we can't say the priesthood ban was the product of revelation), changes to the section headings in the D&C, some changes to some Book of Mormon headings, and the changes in the Book of Mormon intro that suggests the Lehite descendants are only "among" the ancestors of Native Americans. I have my own concerns with the helpfulness and accuracy of portions of the Bible dictionary, the Guide to the Scriptures, and the footnotes.

Nice features of many devotional Bibles include inset maps, inset articles on aspects of Christian living and discipleship, and inset character studies.

Some of those features are very nice and withstand the test of time. The drawback from an LDS perspective is that your Scriptures are bulky already.

[theplains]

On 18/03/2016 at 8:17 AM, maklelan said:

The biggest changes are the additions of historical introductions to the Official Declarations (which, among other things, acknowledge that we can't say the priesthood ban was the product of revelation), 

"The Way to Perfection", by a former LDS President, gives significant reasons for the ban.  But 
if the priesthood ban was not a product of revelation, why did you need a 'revelation' to 
eliminate it?

Thanks, 
Jim

[flameburns623]

So nearly I can tell there are not enou substantive changes since I bought my quad in 1989 or 1990 to justify the purchase.

A shame because I wanted one of those genuine leather versions with the snapover cover. Even those, however, lack the rich polished leather that my present volume possesses. And apparently even the typeface may be a bit harder.

Dang my acquisitive luck