What does this sentence mean?

[_Bazooka]

...to describe changes that take the material (Doctrine & Covenants) further from conformity with the historical documents.

You will have to describe what you are talking about. Are you saying they are removing historical links and just leaving the message or are you saying they are changing the links to not match historical documents? Big difference between the two.

The D&C has had changes made to it over the years.
When explaining away these charges the Church used the sentence I quote in the OP.
Upon examination of some of the changes (such as the description about Oliver Cowdrey using a diving rod) it is clear that, instead of bringing the D&C closer to conformity with the historical documents, they do in fact take it further away. the opposite to what the Church states.

This has been clearly articulated earlier in the thread. e.g.

Rod of Aaron (D&C 8).
Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), Section 8 was a revelation to Oliver Cowdery. The original revelation was changed substantially before being placed in the D&C. Originally one verse read:
...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands


Sidney Rigdon edited the verse:
...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands


When the section was added to the Book of Commandments (BofC) it revised again by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Frederick G. Williams:
Chapter 7:3 Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God.


This is the current reading in the LDS D&C:
D&C 8:6–8 Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God.



The LDS Church has completely removed the word 'rod' from the revelation. The rod was a stick like a divining rod. The modern church leaders are likely embarrassed by the references to magic rods, stones and rocks and superstitious beliefs embraced by Joseph Smith and the followers he attracted.

[_Franktalk]

This has been clearly articulated earlier in the thread. e.g.

So let me add on what I think is happening. First the message.

God is going to give you a thingy to help you in your work. You don't need one but those in the future who read this will stumble all over themselves when they read about it. I want you to use it in faith because it comes from Me.

Now my comments:

Who cares.

But I will add that I think it odd that the church cares about this kind of stuff.

[_subgenius]

You may be right, although if the translators strayed from the text to achieve "correctness" I can see that as a negative. The style of the KJV is more poetic sounding to me, so I like it better. But if the question is accuracy of the translation, I don't rely on it.

but ultimately this 'accuracy' is only as much as it is from a Greek translation, for which 'correctness' could supersede.
So, if one is looking to preserve the integrity of a Greek translation then accuracy would surely be the greater concern...however, the Spirit is fluent in many languages and deftly disregards them all.

[_Bazooka]

This has been clearly articulated earlier in the thread. e.g.

So let me add on what I think is happening. First the message.

God is going to give you a thingy to help you in your work. You don't need one but those in the future who read this will stumble all over themselves when they read about it. I want you to use it in faith because it comes from Me.

Now my comments:

Who cares.

But I will add that I think it odd that the church cares about this kind of stuff.

I have no idea how this post relates to the topic of this thread.
(That may be my fault)

[_Tobin]

Tobin, you're assuming that a literal word for word translation is the most accurate. Do you speak any languages other than English? I also don't understand what you mean by "precise." I don't find KJV English "precise" at all.

Really. What is imprecise about the KJV English exactly? I think if you had studied the KJB at any length, you would find that it is rather precise. For example, let's consider the following:

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0007_Personal_Pronouns_-_Thee_Thou_Ye_You_Thy_Thine_etc.html

Thou is the subject form of the second person, personal pronoun, singular. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:.." (Gen 2:17)

Thee is the object form of the second person, personal pronoun, singular. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman..." (Gen 3:15)

Ye is the subject form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural. "...Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Gen 3:1)

You is the object form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural. "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed..."(Gen 1:29)

In modern English, those uses most often would be replaced with "you". That is highly ambiguous and IMPRECISE.

[_Franktalk]

I have no idea how this post relates to the topic of this thread.
(That may be my fault)

Really? It seems to me you question the need to change documents based on gathered historical facts. This implies that if the original documents were from God they would never need correction. A very common idea which of course God uses to trap those who look at the words and not the message. This same structure is all over scripture. You study the mote while the Titanic sails by.

[_Bazooka]

I have no idea how this post relates to the topic of this thread.
(That may be my fault)

Really? It seems to me you question the need to change documents based on gathered historical facts. This implies that if the original documents were from God they would never need correction. A very common idea which of course God uses to trap those who look at the words and not the message. This same structure is all over scripture. You study the mote while the Titanic sails by.

Okay, so it's not me.

This isn't me questioning the need to change documents based on gathered historical facts.

This thread is about the Church changing scripture under the claim of bringing it in line with historical documents, when in actual fact the changes take it further away from the historical documents.