Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | November 8, 2007 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Elsie]

What does that tell you?

It tells me the LDS organization was very lax concerning the accuracy of their printings.

[Elsie]

Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view...

[Colofornian]

To restore the fullness of the gospel took several stages and a lot of revelation, but now that the restoration is done there is little need for the revelation of doctrine of prophecy.

Well. See, now you part ways with what the Doctrine & Covenants say. (What you say here and what D&C says can't both be right). In several places (D&C 20:9; 42:12; 133:57), the D&C says that the Book of Mormon IS "the fullness of the everlasting gospel."

Who's correct? Joe Smith & the D&C? Or you? (Or neither?) Is it you, who now claims, "No, I guess the gospel wasn't full post completion of the Book of Mormon, after all. It took "several stages and a lot of revelation..."?

You can't both possibly be right without twisting the English language.

When there is something new that God wants the church to receive as doctrine or prophecy it will be received by the prophet, given unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70, then formally presented to the church and added to our scripture.

Oh, so "when there is something new that God wants the Church to receive as doctrine or prophecy...", there must be "unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70,"eh? Wanna explain, then, when LDS "prophet" Wilford Woodruff introduced the Sept. 25 1890 "manifesto" which publicly slowed down the number of LDS polygamous marriages why only Woodruff's name was attached to that document? Wanna explain to all of us why counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith (part of the "First Presidency") did not sign the document? (Even when the LDS "apostles" met over that next week on Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 2, only 8 or 9 of the apostles gave tentative concurrence on the document...see John Henry Smith diaries, entries for those three days, George A. Smith Family Papers available @ the University of Utah Library).

So who's right? The Smith diaries as recorded on those very days those "apostles" met? Or you and the revelation formula you mentioned?

[metmom]

Um, because our bodies are the living temple of God and He dwells in us and doesn’t need a man made temple anymore, since Christ paid the final penalty for our sins.

[metmom]

So the whole book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated from these gold tablets?

Just how big were these things and how much did they weigh?

And how could anybody have just *lost* them?

[metmom]

They were not lost, an angel of God took them back. Several people saw, touched, and lifted the plates.

The plates were supposed to have been buried in the ground. How could an angel have taken them "back"? That implies that the angel gave him them first.

So an angel took them back? Pretty convenient.

How did he find them in the first place?

[metmom]

Your screen name is showing.

Elsie IS a sir.

You need to get out more.

[sevenbak]

Here’s the account of the First Vision and the acquiring of the plates in Joseph’s own words if you are really interested in learning about it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version. Not even an “intro” by McConckie, this is in Joseph Smith’s own words.

[sevenbak]

Yes they were, indeed. I have no doubt but that they came here long before Columbus.

But as to the genetics of the tribes of Jacob, we know what Judah’s descendent's were like 2000 years later, but not the rest of his children, from different mothers. One can only guess.

Read pages 36 and 37 of this book, Indians in the Americas, the untold story. It’s quite interesting, and it’s not LDS, but has many many accounts of similar encounters with white skinned, light hair Indians.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Obgdz8auwkMC&printsec=frontcover

[sevenbak]

Elsie, you just made my nose bleed I laughed so hard. Thanks dude! (Mormon dude that is)

[Elsie]

Who's correct? Joe Smith & the D&C? Or you? (Or neither?)

There you go again!

Trying to use LOGIC!!!

--MormonDude(hooked on a feelin')

[Elsie]

Oh, so "when there is something new that God wants the Church to receive as doctrine or prophecy...", there must be "unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70,"eh? Wanna explain, then, when LDS "prophet" Wilford Woodruff introduced the Sept. 25 1890 "manifesto" which publicly slowed down the number of LDS polygamous marriages why only Woodruff's name was attached to that document? Wanna explain to all of us why counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith (part of the "First Presidency") did not sign the document? (Even when the LDS "apostles" met over that next week on Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 2, only 8 or 9 of the apostles gave tentative concurrence on the document...see John Henry Smith diaries, entries for those three days, George A. Smith Family Papers available @ the University of Utah Library).

---

---

Uh... like THIS???

---

---

 

 

    OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

 

 

 

---

---

---

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

---

---

So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!

 

Well; it DID last about 47 years!

[Elsie]

I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version.

Oh??

VERSION??

Why is there a 'version'??

Shouldn't there just be THE vision??

[Elsie]

One can only guess.

I've noticed.

[Elsie]

You need to check the humidity in your home. Dry air makes for some nose bleeds.

(I can just hear the ol’ Horndog-in-Chief, as he lusts over some dried out woman!)

[Elsie]

 In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

 

 

HMMmm...

 

 

I wonder just what THIS means??

[Elsie]

I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version.

Do you have any data on When and by Whom this took place?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Thank you for the interesting chat. I don't want to continue hackin' on your religion. My comment to colorcountry (that started all this) was not to denegrate Christianity per se it was more a rhetorical question about who would want to become a part of that particular perspective or interpretation. The type of perspective where all you do is camp out in a chat room and suckerpunch everyone still taking part in your former religion. Of course it must be all out of "love". Lol. I should have elaborated more earlier.

Anyway needed to be said. Its refreshing to see you all bond together now instead of jumping down one another's throats in the name of love. You can all thank me later in life or in the next.

May the interstates run through all of your out houses. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I’m sorry I always thought he was a woman. My mistake.
When someone posts like a girly man its easy to get confused. :-)

[Old Mountain man]

I have no personal knowledge as to Elsie’s sex. That is one of those things I am happy to be “Willfully Ignorant” of.