Historical Changes in the LDS Scriptures

By: Mormon Heretic
March 4, 2013

The LDS Church has produced an update to the scriptures, following 8 years of work by historians on the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  You may have heard about some of the changes, as our own Andrew S was the one that alerted me, but By Common Consent has some fantastic posts on the subject as well, to go along with Allison at Mormon Momma.  With the recent work of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, historians have found more accurate information than was available following the last major upgrade to the scriptures in 1981. Among the improvements are better dates for some of the revelations.  For example, the 1981 version of D&C 22 lists that it was received in April 1830, but the Joseph Smith Papers Project helped identify that it was April 16. The 1981 version also listed a revelation to James Covill, a Baptist minister; however it turns out his name should have been spelled Covel, and he was a Methodist minister.  They have also removed many of the references to History of the Church, due to updated information that showed that there are better histories now available.  If you’re interested in seeing before and after versions, the Church has published a PDF document so you can see all of the changes yourself.

The most significant changes seem to occur in the Doctrine and Covenants with new introductions to Official Declaration 1 and Official Declaration 2.  I’d like to discuss those in more detail.

Official Declaration 1

Known as “the Manifesto”, the 2013 version adds the following header that was absent from the 1981 edition.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7-8 and Jacob 2:27, 30).  Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132).  From the 1860s to the 1880s, the Unites States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal.  These laws were eventually upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court.  After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890.  This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

Also conspicuous was the removal of the line from 1981,

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Most certainly, there were many Mormons that did not sustain it, leading to the eventual formation of polygamist sects such as the the United Apostolic Brethren (Kody Brown of Sister Wives fame is a member), the FLDS Church (led by Warren Jeffs), and other groups.

What caught my attention was the wording that “monogamy is God’s standard” and plural marriage was a “practice” rather than a “principle”.  In justifying plural marriage, it was stated to be a law of heaven, in order to get into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  But the wording doesn’t seem consistent with D&C 132′s changes.

If you look at the PDF document I linked to earlier, the changes are noted in yellow.  Specifically, the heading refers to “the principle of plural marriage”.  So is it a principle, or a practice?

Do you think plural marriage is a practice or a principle?

  • Practice (38%, 15 Votes)
  • Neither (23%, 9 Votes)
  • Both (21%, 8 Votes)
  • Who cares? (13%, 5 Votes)
  • Principle (5%, 2 Votes)

Total Voters: 39

Loading ... Loading ...

Official Declaration 2

This also has a brand new introduction.

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 regards to race that once applied to the priesthood.

This is a very nice introduction.  Following the Randy Bott debacle last year, the Church issued a statement that “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church…”  Well, at least they are acknowledging that it did not begin with Joseph Smith, and perhaps they are correct that “Church records offer no clear insights into” why “Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent.”  I have my theories, and I think it is largely due to some interracial marriages by William McCary, Joseph Ball, and Enoch Lewis.  Connell O’Donovan has documented much of this information, with much of it coming from church records.  I’d also like them to better acknowledge some of the Early Black Mormons.

I also found Allison’s comments on sexism with the priesthood, as well as EmJen’s quite interesting as well.  Certainly this could pave the way for an interpretation that women could hold the priesthood as well.  At the temple this week, I noticed something interesting.  Normally when we perform priesthood ordinances or blessings, we use the phrase “by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.”  However, during the initiatory, it was only stated that these blessings were performed by those “having authority.”  It is my understanding that the prayers are identical for female as well as male initiants.  During the endowment, women are clothed in the robes of the holy priesthood (both Aaronic and Melchizedek), and I believe that women repeat the exact same wording as the men when crossing through the veil.  The only difference I can ascertain is that men are ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to the initiatory ordinance, but women are not.  I asked a female temple worker if she felt that she held the priesthood when she performed these temple ordinances, and she said she did.  I know that there is some debate as to whether women blessing the sick administered with or without the priesthood (Stapely says no, while Quinn says yes), but my mission president, a former sealer, said that women administer inside the temple with the priesthood.

Book of Abraham

I wanted to compare these revisions a little more closely than the church PDF shows.

1981 versionDeletions and Additions2013 version
The Book of Abraham.  A translation from some Egyptian papyri that come into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham.  The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.  See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534.The Book of AbrahamAn inspiredA translation from some Egyptian papyri that come into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534.The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham.  Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.  The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

Now let’s get nit-picky.  We went from “a translation” to “an inspired translation.”  A recent book about the papyri seems to show that the Egyptian alphabet that Joseph Smith collaborated with others was wrong.  There is rising skepticism as to whether this translation is a literal translation or not.  A rising conclusion is that The Book of Abraham might be inspired, but it does not appear to be a literal translation.  It may have been more of a revelation, akin to the Book of Moses, in which there was no source document.  Perhaps the papyri merely served as a catalyst for Joseph to receive revelation, rather than a literal translation.  While the new introduction still uses the word “translation”, it appears that the church may be trying to distance itself from the idea of a literal translation.  But I guess we will have to ask a church spokesman to confirm this theory.

If you’d like to get a paper copy of these scriptures, the Church has announced that they will start producing the new version of scriptures in August, but “Members do not need to purchase new scriptures.”  It’s interesting that the scriptures are available online before the print edition comes out.

What do you make of the changes?

Tags: , , , , ,

40 Responses to Historical Changes in the LDS Scriptures

  1. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 1:52 AM

    Here is what I wrote on Andrew S’s blog:

    Absolutely wonderful changes. They did a bang up job. At least, from the side by side comparison of D&C and PofGP. The only problem I have is with the first sentence of the OD 1 heading, but even that is understandable since that is the current understanding of just about the entire church. The Scriptures Committee, whoever they are, have really impressed me on this edition.

    I am one who completely ignores the chapter headings of the Book of Mormon and Bible (after all, what do I care about somebody’s possibly uninspired summary of the content?) but the D&C section headings are useful to give a historical context (the verse summaries I ignore) and the book introductions also give historical context. I am glad to see all the historical research making the section headings more accurate and informative.

    I will probably end up incorporating many of these changes into my own, ongoing scriptural project: http://1stactscriptures.wordpress.com/

    Regarding the Book of Abraham, I really wish people would chill on this topic. It was directly translated from an Egyptian scroll, which was subsequently lost or (more likely) destroyed, perhaps in that one fire. We have a description of the scroll and it doesn’t match the surviving scrolls. So the Abrahamic scroll is lost or was (likely) destroyed. It’s as simple as that.

    If we didn’t have a description of the Abrahamic scroll, I could understand all the speculation, but the description establishes that it once existed and it is not in our collection. End of story.

    Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,” including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,” described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”; (2) “a long roll of manuscript” that contained the Book of Abraham; (3) “another roll”; (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.” Only the mounted fragments ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and thence were given back to the Church of Jesus Christ. When eyewitnesses described the vignettes as being of the mounted fragments, they can be matched with the fragments from the Metropolitan Museum of Art; but when the vignettes described are on the rolls, the descriptions do not match any of the fragments from the Met. Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there. Those papyri went to Chicago and were burned in the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Whatever we might imagine their contents to be is only conjecture. Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham,” meaning the “long roll of manuscript” and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

    Then there’s this:

    “The Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X and XI, was not in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham. For he has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: ‘The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.’…

    Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved, beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics [red characters], there is no reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of ‘the record of Abraham and Joseph.’ And there can be no doubt whatever that the manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from that badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which is today identified as the Book of Breathings. One cannot insist too strongly on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the Book of Breathings has been ‘identified as the very source of the Book of Abraham’ on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case….”

    The Abrahamic scroll itself shows two authors, not one, so it wasn’t written by Abraham himself. See

    http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/the-two-authors-of-the-book-of-abraham/

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  2. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 2:05 AM

    Oh, btw, those quotes come from Jeff Lindsey’s three part Book of Abraham FAQ, found here:

    http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  3. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 2:29 AM

    Yet another comment…

    Apologies to Jeff Lindsay for spelling his name wrong in the previous comment…

    Also, Lindsay’s FAQ covers the Egyptian “Alphabet and Grammar,” too.

    Finally, the two authors bit solves a great deal of the mystery surrounding the Book of Abraham and its use of facsimiles on the other mundane scrolls, also why the mundane scrolls were together with the sacred writings of Abraham and Joseph. The implication seems obvious to me so I don’t see a need to spell it out.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  4. mark on March 4, 2013 at 5:59 AM

    I had hope that the new scripture editions would contain more of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible (Inspired Version). The Community of Christ still has ownership but does not give it priority. I use it in all meetings and wonder if the Church will ever be able to publish a “quad” edition containing it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  5. Howard on March 4, 2013 at 7:12 AM

    It may have been more of a revelation, akin to the Book of Moses, in which there was no source document. Perhaps the papyri merely served as a catalyst for Joseph to receive revelation, rather than a literal translation.

    Yes, this makes sense. Wasn’t it the same for the BoM? Head and seer stone in a hat, plates out of sight.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  6. hawkgrrrl on March 4, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    I had the same thought about this paving the way for female priesthood ordination or de facto priethood for endowed females. As to Book of Abraham, I think this clearly puts a caveat on it because it doesn’t hold up to scholarly scrutiny as most members expected it to. This leaves wiggle room.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  7. annegb on March 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    What I make of this is that almost nothing can be taken literally. I’m validated at my rejection of certain scripture (I dislike Job, for example) and also plan to use these changes when I argue with people in Sunday School.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  8. allquieton on March 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    They also changed the chapter heading for Jacob 2, which has to do with polygamy.

    Old version: “Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage.”

    New version: “The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife.”

    I think it’s an improvement, but personally I would have left out the phrase “among the Nephites.”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  9. Douglas on March 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

    Oh criminy, the Ark-Steadiers are at it again. Yep, some minor revisions were made to ‘clarify’ matters, which yours truly didn’t need.
    As for women being given the Priesthood – what a stretch. Not that I have an issue with it (the Savior bestows it upon whom He will and doesn’t seek my advice on the matter) but I see nothing that indicates such a significant change is afoot.
    As for why change the BoM prohibition on ‘Polygamy’ (in reality, men interpreting the Scriptures in a self-serving fashion to justify keeping one or more mistresses) to just the Nephites? Because obviously the Lamanites weren’t paying need to the Nephites. The condemnation is more upon those whom, by their hypocrisy, had become like what the Savior would later term “whitewashed sepulchers”.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  10. Anon on March 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    Re. polygamy as a “principle” or a “practice” – they’ve lost me either way. I think the new OD1 intro. does more harm than good. If polygamy is what God wants, then that’s what we’ll do – unless the Supreme Court stops us???

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  11. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 12:44 PM

    #4 mark,

    The Community of Christ still has ownership but does not give it priority.

    They don’t? Do they use some other version of the Bible?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  12. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    #5 Howard,

    Yes, this makes sense. Wasn’t it the same for the BoM? Head and seer stone in a hat, plates out of sight.

    It wouldn’t make sense if there were two authors. In that case, translating whatever was on that scroll makes the most sense.

    Also, the head in the hat thing is not the only version. There are also the accounts in which he is said to have used the Urim and Thummim, not some singular seer stone. Two conflicting sets of accounts. I think this image of Joseph translating is the accurate one.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  13. Howard on March 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    The accounts don’t conflict that’s what one goes through learing to seer better.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  14. Jared L. on March 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    Re: Polygamy a “principle” or a “practice?” – It’s both. God’s principles don’t change. Included in the principle of polygamy must be that it practiced at times, and at other times it is not. Jacob 2 points out one such time it is practiced. Thus D&C 132 describes the principle, OD1 ends the practice.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  15. mark on March 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM

    #11 LDS

    Yes; almost every Bible verse in their publications reference the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

    Two testimonial “selling points” of the JST run counter to the opinion of many CofChrist members: That the changes made were divinely inspired and are an improvement on the KJV.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  16. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    #8 allquieton,

    Old version: “Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage.”

    New version: “The Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife.”

    That’s a fantastic heading change! It paints a more accurate picture. The whole truth of course is that the Lord commanded Lehi that no Lehites have more than one wife, which is why Jacob says in Jacob 3:5 that the Lamanites were keeping this commandment given to them by Lehi, but the text of Jacob 2 only mentions the Nephites, so the new heading is totally accurate (when you take Jacob 2 out of the context of Jacob’s full sermon.)

    I’ve been teaching this principle–that the polygamy prohibition in the Book of Mormon was specific to only the Lehites and had no application beyond that lineage–for quite some time now and had to counsel people to ignore the often inaccurate headings, but these wonderful new headings are so vastly more accurate that perhaps I don’t need to do that anymore…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  17. Howard on March 4, 2013 at 1:50 PM

    LDS Anarchist,
    Seer stones including the U&T contain no magic except optical properties that can be easily explained by science. They are used to give the seer/scryer a known place to focus his eyes instead of an infinity focus or shifting focus hunting for the image. This makes seering much easier. Some of these stones are intended to be surface focus and others are translucent to allow an image to be seen within the stone like a 3d hologram. The images are accompanied by concept dense thought downloads that must be unpacked and considered in the context of the image and double checked with the sender (figure it out in you mind and ask). a seer will practice with a variety of stones and dim lighting until he finds a combination that works best for him. These vision aids are used for beginning and intermediate seers experienced advanced seers don’t need them and I doubt Joseph used them later in his life.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  18. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 2:28 PM

    Howard,

    How do you know so much about seer stones? Do you have one or do you know of someone who has one?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  19. Howard on March 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM

    I was trained to use them and i kept one and was given another I also tried a window pane near dusk. I’m skiing in Montana right now, I’m happy to look around outside for one for you! They’re not that special, learning to defocus your eyes in dim light works better.

    The “translation” isn’t from engraving to English the way a translator would do it. it’s from image + concept download into concepts into thought words into English! Unpacking the concept download requires contemplation because it is multilayered like a parable, it is very rich and dense and words are often inadequate to quickly or easily do justice to accurately describing what was received and one’s understanding changes over time which is why I am not bothered at all by multiple first vision accounts.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  20. Will on March 4, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    To me this is all just technical overhead and I could care less either way. I could care less about grammar or a person’s name being spelled correctly.

    I have an 1830 copy of the Book of Mormon and have personally compared it to the 1981 version – page by page, verse by verse. My testimony hinges on this great book because it contains the fullness of the Gospel. It encourages me to do good and enlarges my soul and enlightens my mind. It is the most correct book on earth. It mentions nothing of temple ordinances, offices in the priesthood, primary, fast offerings, race and priesthood, drugs, same sex marriage or any other of the many issues that are the primary topics of discussion in this blog.

    What matters is that it contains the fullness of the gospel as outlined in 3 Nephi 11. This is all that matters; the doctrine of Christ. All other scripture, including the Prophet, should promote faith in Christ; call or motivate people to repent; encourage them to commit via covenant; and, live by the spirit all the days of their life.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  21. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM

    To me this is all just technical overhead and I could care less either way. I could care less about grammar or a person’s name being spelled correctly.

    Surely you must mean that you couldn’t care less either way and that you couldn’t care less about grammar, because what you just wrote says that you care about these things…

    Maybe grammar is a little important?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  22. Brian on March 4, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    Even in one of its finest hours of changing direction, the church just can’t let go. On the church website, the changes aren’t called changes, but “adjustments” to the scriptures. The church can’t use the word change just like Fonzie couldn’t utter that he was “wrong”.

    This is a perfect example of the church intending to create an atmosphere in which the it seems better or more than it is. Sad. Just plain sad. For everybody.

    LDS Anarchist–what is your simple explanation of the facsimiles in the PoGP and their nonsensical translation?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  23. Rigel Hawthorne on March 4, 2013 at 7:02 PM

    The fascimilies are not that different than reading Jacob 5. To one person you are reading about digging and dunging. To another, you are reading about the Lord’s dealings with the House of Israel. Not unlike one person seeing a moon, sun, and stars carved into the exterior of the temple and another seeing 3 heavenly degrees. Did the person who’s hand calligraphied the facsimiles onto papyri do so with dual meaning? Perhaps and perhaps not, but the Lord uses mysterious ways to convey principles involving making and keeping covenants.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  24. Rigel Hawthorne on March 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

    I also laud that heading change that places in scripture the correct factual history that Joseph Smith ordained black members to the priesthood. This was not information that was readily available to me in my youth. Now it can be read by every seminary student!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  25. LDS Anarchist on March 4, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    Brian,

    Just follow the links and come to your own conclusions. That’s why I put them there.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  26. Will on March 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

    Brian

    You come across as bitter and that is sad.

    I can make adjustments to my tie, which is different than changing it; I can make adjustments to my workout without changing it: I can make adjustments to my web-site and I suppose that is technicially changing the site. However, I would be indifferent about what term I used to describe what I did and if someone insisted I state “i changed it”, I would shrug
    my shoulders and dismiss them because they are being goofy.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  27. Mormon Heretic on March 4, 2013 at 10:39 PM

    Doug, it looks like the Church is accommodating the “Ark-steadiers.” This makes it seem a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Who has the more prophetic vision: the ark-steadiers or the leaders? The Ark-steadiers have been asking for church leaders to more readily acknowledge the early black history. I’d say the ark-steadiers have won a significant concession.

    It is the most correct book on earth. It mentions nothing of temple ordinances, offices in the priesthood, primary, fast offerings, race and priesthood, drugs, same sex marriage or any other of the many issues that are the primary topics of discussion in this blog.

    Will, did you suddenly convert to the Community of Christ? You seem to know their position quite well. That’s exactly why they don’t participate in any of the temple ordinances–they aren’t found in the BoM. You seem to be unintentionally arguing that we can ignore temple ordinances because they aren’t included in the BoM. Certainly that is the position of the Community of Christ.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. Mormon Heretic on March 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM

    By the way, I fixed the poll, if anyone would like to answer it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  29. hawkgrrrl on March 5, 2013 at 1:54 AM

    Douglas: I said “I had the same thought about this paving the way for female priesthood ordination or de facto priethood for endowed females.” You said: “As for women being given the Priesthood – what a stretch. Not that I have an issue with it (the Savior bestows it upon whom He will and doesn’t seek my advice on the matter) but I see nothing that indicates such a significant change is afoot.” I want to clarify. I don’t necessarily think the church intends to make a big change as have many other churches (mostly because the attrition rates of those other churches are pretty high!), just that this leaves the doorway open for future change in a way it was not previously. Personally, I think if the church ever does something with priesthood for women, it will be like at the end of the Wizard of Oz where Glinda the Good Witch tells Dorothy she had the power to go home all along – meaning that they will in some way acknowledge that endowed women have (within the temple) been endowed with priesthood power, even though they do not hold administrative or cleric priesthood roles in the everyday church.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  30. Brian on March 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    Will-not to surprised that this nuance is lost on you.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  31. Xam on March 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    If this truly were the most correct book in earth it would not need to be changed every so often.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  32. Douglas on March 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM

    HawkChick – since you brought up the Wizard of Oz and Glinda:

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=munbt8qpCiQ

    Women can by virtue of their faith accomplish fairly much anything that brethren with the Priesthood. It begs the question, why even have it? My guess, aside from “Thus Saith the Lord” (and also the REAL power behind the Throne), is that it’s to channel the energies of men. It’s my opinion that women, their tendency to Cattiness aside, tend to work as a sisterhood better with less formal (top-down) direction. Most brethren, myself included, need to be soundly clubbed with a Louisville Slugger and then pointed in the right direction, then given a swift kick in the pants

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  33. mh on March 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

    Doug, are you a caveman? All your cattiness talk and Louisville slugger leads me to think so. Come join us in the21st century where a don’t make stupid sexist comments like that.

    Will, I am still perplexed by your book of Mormon comments. Are you saying w&t should switch to only talking about the book of Mormon? That would mean you couldn’t talk politics anymore…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  34. Douglas on March 5, 2013 at 9:06 PM

    Heretic, I’m a realist, and give not a crap whose feathers get ruffled. I am frequently appalled at how the Sisters treat each other. Still, they work together and take direction better than we Brethren. We need the external discipline of the Priesthood. W/O it, we’d not amount to much.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  35. Douglas on March 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM

    And considering the CaveMen that I know, I’ll consider the supposed put-down a compliment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Robinson_%28baseball%29

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

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

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  36. mh on March 5, 2013 at 11:52 PM

    ok captain caveman, I think you have given yourself a new nickname.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  37. Douglas on March 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    It’s a deal. Someone tell me how to get an image of Cpt Caveman posted as an avatar

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  38. mh on March 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    You can get a gravatar at https://en.gravatar.com/

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  39. LDS Anarchist on March 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM

    #19 (and also #17) Howard,

    Considering your explanation of seer stones, how do explain this?

    Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

    It sounds like the stones you are talking about aren’t the dangerous ones spoken in this scripture. Or am I reading this wrong?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  40. [...] Of course, it’s not the first time they’ve changed the BoA’s explanatory intro — see this this history — and it’s not the only part that was changed. (Actually, it’s interesting to note how much Mormon temples changed in purpose during the early days of the church.) The colorful BoA has distracted us from the interesting racial re-explaining plus some interesting polygamy whitewash! [...]

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Archives

%d bloggers like this: