What does this sentence mean?

[_vessr]

Bazooka, Subgenius did claim to have answered the question by referring you to the statement, "These changes have been made so as to bring the material into conformity with the historical documents." But apologists agree that originally the section was about a divining rod; so it's hard to comprehend how the changes brought "the material into conformity." It appears instead to have been intended to take the reader away from the historical documents and make the reference ambiguous rather than clearer. And that seems to be your point.

As an example of apologists acknowledging that section 8 was referring to a divining rod, a FARMS review stated that "[d]ivining rods were sometimes used to answer yes/no questions. A revelation to Oliver Cowdery dictated by Joseph Smith stated that 'it has told you things.' Book of Commandments 7:3." (Section 7 of the Book of Commandments became section 8 of the Doctrine and Covenants.)

[_subgenius]

I figured you'd come up empty, I wasn't disappointed...

you don't have me fooled...not a day passes without seeing your disappointment.

[_subgenius]

Bazooka, Subgenius did claim to have answered the question by referring you to the statement, "These changes have been made so as to bring the material into conformity with the historical documents." But apologists agree that originally the section was about a divining rod; so it's hard to comprehend how the changes brought "the material into conformity." It appears instead to have been intended to take the reader away from the historical documents and make the reference ambiguous rather than clearer. And that seems to be your point.

As an example of apologists acknowledging that section 8 was referring to a divining rod, a FARMS review stated that "[d]ivining rods were sometimes used to answer yes/no questions. A revelation to Oliver Cowdery dictated by Joseph Smith stated that 'it has told you things.' Book of Commandments 7:3." (Section 7 of the Book of Commandments became section 8 of the Doctrine and Covenants.)

One FARMS review and you claim support for the conclusion of obfuscation? You post is as desperate as Drifting's...er...i mean Bazooka's.

I have noted the variety of Biblical references to divine power via a "rod" (chuckle)...an even more glaring example is the one we read about Moses using.
Never the less, i think you will find most apologists agree on the matter as being a point of clarification that the rod of Aaron was specific to a purpose, and that purpose was translation. This is no more than consistency with Biblical history where we see other devices yielding divine power...such as seer stones, Liahona, and Urim/Thummin.

Good luck with your witch hunt, but it may be more productive to try and discern why Drifting still attends all 3 hours of meetings on Sunday and is convinced that the best way to support his alcoholic family is by tending the bar.

[_Molok]

So, how does removing references to a divining rod bring the material into historical conformity? Subgenius has already told us about how the rod is used as a symbol of God's power / authority, so it would seem that removing references to the rod would be doing the exact opposite of bringing the material into historical conformity. It's almost like the church is embarrassed of Joseph Smith's folk magic. That's probably why they never show him with his head in a hat, dictating the Book of Mormon, and instead choose to show him doing super serious study, poring over the plates (something which never happened by the way)

[_Bazooka]

Bazooka, Subgenius did claim to have answered the question by referring you to the statement, "These changes have been made so as to bring the material into conformity with the historical documents." But apologists agree that originally the section was about a divining rod; so it's hard to comprehend how the changes brought "the material into conformity." It appears instead to have been intended to take the reader away from the historical documents and make the reference ambiguous rather than clearer. And that seems to be your point.

Exactly that.

In fact the changes do the opposite, they take the material further away from historical conformity.
I'm not suggesting the Church is lying about all the changes, but in the example given from the D&C, they certainly aren't telling the truth!

[_vessr]

One FARMS review and you claim support for the conclusion of obfuscation? You post is as desperate as Drifting's...er...i mean Bazooka's.

I have noted the variety of Biblical references to divine power via a "rod" (chuckle)...an even more glaring example is the one we read about Moses using.
Never the less, i think you will find most apologists agree on the matter as being a point of clarification that the rod of Aaron was specific to a purpose, and that purpose was translation. This is no more than consistency with Biblical history where we see other devices yielding divine power...such as seer stones, Liahona, and Urim/Thummin.

Good luck with your witch hunt, but it may be more productive to try and discern why Drifting still attends all 3 hours of meetings on Sunday and is convinced that the best way to support his alcoholic family is by tending the bar.

Subgenius, you responded, "One FARMS review and you claim support for the conclusion of obfuscation? You post is as desperate as Drifting's...er...i mean Bazooka's."

You ridicule my findings, by calling my post "desparate" and saying, "Good luck with your witch hunt." You also make telestial comments about Drifting which are inappropriate for this forum.

Well, let's take the witch hunt one step closer to your own doorstep, by citing directly from LDS.org, “Oliver Cowdery's Gift,” history.LDS.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery:

“Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.8

“The Lord recognized Oliver’s ability to use a rod: “thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the rod.”9 Confirming the divinity of this gift, the revelation stated: “Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God.” If Oliver desired, the revelation went on to say, the Lord would add the gift of translation to the revelatory gifts Oliver already possessed (D&C 8:8-11).”

Footnote 9 reads, “The earliest manuscript of this revelation refers to Oliver Cowdery’s “gift of working with the sprout.” Sidney Rigdon changed “sprout” to “rod” in preparation for the revelation's publication in the Book of Commandments in 1833. The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants is the first source to call it “the gift of Aaron." See Revelation Book 1, p. 13; Book of Commandments 7:3; Doctrine and Covenants (1835), 34:3. The word sprout meant “the end of a branch or shoot” (Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828]).”

Whose witch hunt are YOU on? The answer to that would be your own.

[_moksha]

Bhodi, I think it means that an earnest attempt has been made to decrease a number of embellishments.

[_ByGrace]

These changes have been made so as to bring the material into conformity with the historical documents.

I believe that it is Reformed Egyptian, and it means "We make it up as we go along".

[_Bazooka]

Subgenius, you responded, "One FARMS review and you claim support for the conclusion of obfuscation? You post is as desperate as Drifting's...er...i mean Bazooka's."

You ridicule my findings, by calling my post "desparate" and saying, "Good luck with your witch hunt." You also make telestial comments about Drifting which are inappropriate for this forum.

Well, let's take the witch hunt one step closer to your own doorstep, by citing directly from LDS.org, “Oliver Cowdery's Gift,” history.LDS.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery:

“Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.8

“The Lord recognized Oliver’s ability to use a rod: “thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the rod.”9 Confirming the divinity of this gift, the revelation stated: “Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God.” If Oliver desired, the revelation went on to say, the Lord would add the gift of translation to the revelatory gifts Oliver already possessed (D&C 8:8-11).”

Footnote 9 reads, “The earliest manuscript of this revelation refers to Oliver Cowdery’s “gift of working with the sprout.” Sidney Rigdon changed “sprout” to “rod” in preparation for the revelation's publication in the Book of Commandments in 1833. The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants is the first source to call it “the gift of Aaron." See Revelation Book 1, p. 13; Book of Commandments 7:3; Doctrine and Covenants (1835), 34:3. The word sprout meant “the end of a branch or shoot” (Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828]).”

Whose witch hunt are YOU on? The answer to that would be your own.

Unfortunately subgenius is crashing & burning on every single thread on which he is offering a contribution. On one thread he listed 6 links to support his claims. Sadly a poster went through those links and found that, not only do they not support his claim, they actually destroy it! He is running on empty, and when that happens he tries to deflect by having some form of pop at the other posters.

He seems to have taken a shine to me. I should be flattered I suppose, but I'm not.
I'm placing him on 'ignore' now because he has nothing by way of substance to offer and he is just soiling threads with attempted derails.

[_Franktalk]

I know where it comes from, I'm asking what it means.
Because it suggests that when the D&C was first published, its contents didn't accurately match history.

I would like to point out that the message from a Spiritual source may indeed have many earthly errors. I think that if you concentrate on the message then God will speak to you through the words. But if you act like Peter standing on the water and notice the world around you you will start to sink. We all can stumble on scripture. I think it is made that way on purpose.

So the beam of the Godly message is ignored in order to argue over a mote of the earth. I think that the requirement that scripture be perfect is a creation of man. I have fallen into that trap before. But if we let the Holy Spirit be our guide we will see what we need to see and the rest does not matter.