DiscussMormonism.com

There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)

However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)

Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?

Jason Bourne wrote:There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)

However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)

Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?

Aside from the irony of joe teaching that polygamy is a nono I see this modification as a clear representation of individuals who would rather change the books instead of confronting past incongruities in what the leaders say and what they do. As you well know Jason this is not the first no the last.

Aside from the irony of joe teaching that polygamy is a nono I see this modification as a clear representation of individuals who would rather change the books instead of confronting past incongruities in what the leaders say and what they do. As you well know Jason this is not the first no the last.

Yes I know. This is just one example and there are other egregious ones as well. For me this is a BIG issue. I am interested in hearing how someone like Plutarch or Coggins deals with such changes and editing.

Jason Bourne wrote:Yes I know. This is just one example and there are other egregious ones as well. For me this is a BIG issue. I am interested in hearing how someone like Plutarch or Coggins deals with such changes and editing.

Heres how they deal:

1. Place fingers in ears.
2. Repeat "LALALALA" over and over again until the person delivering material goes away.
3. Take the false sense of victory and dream of the many spiritual wives they will have once they leave this "lone dreary world".

VegasRefugee wrote:Heres how they deal:

1. Place fingers in ears.
2. Repeat "LALALALA" over and over again until the person delivering material goes away.
3. Take the false sense of victory and dream of the many spiritual wives they will have once they leave this "lone dreary world".

I hope not. I am really interested about hwo they deal with such tampering.

Jason Bourne wrote:I hope not. I am really interested about hwo they deal with such tampering.

In my experience its irrelevant to them as all contradictory occurrences in church history are to them. For them they celebrate it because the church does not see it as a problem. They are in lockstep obedience to the cult therefore its just peechy for them.

Jason Bourne wrote:There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)

However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)

Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?

Hi Jason,
This does trouble me. I wonder what else could have been tampered with....D & C 132?

I believe the evidence that Joseph taught plural marriage and practiced it could possibly be tampered with by Brigham Young and those who followed him. I have spoken with some RLDS members who admit the Fanny Alger relationship was an affair. I will have to go back through the sources in Compton's book, but if I recall, most of the evidence that Joseph was practicing plural marriages came from Brigham's followers, and polygamy defenders.

It would be helpful to make a list of any polygamy teaching attributed to Joseph Smith and find out if the source was attached to Brigham. It's understandable that the RLDS take the position they do.

1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.

harmony wrote:1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.

Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary. Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)

rcrocket wrote:

harmony wrote:1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.

Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary. Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)

I see your ad hominem "information" but all i hear is BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.