http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf

Note in particular the changes to the Book of Abraham introduction and the addition to OD2

An inspired translation lol. At least they've moved away from claiming it's a literal translation. Guess they've thrown in the towel on that one. BOM not a literal history next?

Now, NO connection is made in the PoGP Introduction between the papyri and the BoA, except chonologically. (However, I don't see anything about a change in the Introduction to the BoA, itself, which would still read: "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. —The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348–351.")

The admission that "a few black male members" received the priesthood during JS's lifetime (OD 2) is also big--of course, it's what the "anti's" have published for decades.

Also, the capitalization shift in Alma 12:31 (”becoming as Gods” to “becoming as gods”) seems to be an effort to downplay the historical polytheism of Mormonism. Since Genesis 3:5 uses similar phrasing, but without the capitalization, critics will have to use other sources to show Mormonism departs from traditional monotheistic beliefs.

Thanks for posting this!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2013 05:32AM by Fetal Deity.

I don't think they could change the Intro to the BOA itself because those are Joseph Smith's own words/claims. Changing that would be tantamount to an admission that the Prophet got it wrong.

After Simon Southerton published his work on DNA, LDS, Inc. altered JS's own intro to the BoM to deprecate the connection between Lamanites and American Indians. Instead of saying they were the "principle ancestors", the 21st C. BoM now says they were "among the ancestors" of the Lamanites. American Indians went from being Lamanites to having some distance connection to them.

LDS, Inc. is not above changing JS's own words to suit their shifting doctrinal needs.

Fascinating. So there is no connection between the papyri that JS got and the "inspired" "translation" that happened to come out immediately after? Well then why are the facsimiles included in the "translation" lifted straight from the papyri?? This is one of the more idiotic attempts at revising history I've ever seen!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2013 05:39AM by nickname.

You're not kidding it's HUGE. It's also a big win for Exmormon prophesy. How long have people been predicting on this site that the so-called "church" would do This EXACT thing? At least the whole 12 years I've been here. WE CALLED IT! We've said TSCC would start moving away from saying it was a translation of the papyri (since that makes it the most PROVEABLE fraud in the cult) to saying JS received it by inspiration and the scrolls were just a source of inspiration, or his means of channeling the Egyptian part of the story.

They tried really hard to go with the "the scrolls he really translated from we're lost in a fire" line but too many smart people said "but wait, why do the facsimiles match"?

Love the way they stuck the one really huge change at the end after pages of stuff no one gives a schit about so the sheeple would ignore it. This will be a big addition to the MormonThink info about the BOA and will backfire on their thinking that people won't pick up on the attempt to slip it in unnoticed.

A brief letter about the changes is to be read from the pulpit on Sunday I think.

Intro., par. 1, sent. 2—Changed “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” to “a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas,” deleting 'the' in “with the ancient inhabitants” to provide clarity and greater
accuracy.

Further backpedaling on BOM...

removing "the" doesn't improve clarity, it adds waffle room.

...neither does removing all the citations of the History of the Church.

That's EXACTLY what it does. While reading the .pdf, that one leaped out at me. I'm glad others saw it. It looks like a minor adjustment along with all the others, but IT IS MAJOR.

Amazing. Deleting "the" can mean so much. This is what happens in laws like the PATRIOT act. They spend page after page after page changing "of" to "from," correcting spelling, and then in one obscure passage they strip away your rights.

The church is trying to change its history by removing "the." Ain't gonna work. Everybody knows that "the" ancient inhabitants of America never heard of Jesus. Maybe someday they'll find the posterity of the Lamanites hidden in some remote alcove and finally be able to give them the g*ddamn book.

"Intro., par. 1, sent. 2—Deleted the phrase “as does the Bible” to provide clarity and accuracy so that the last clause reads: “. . . and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

So, the Introduction to the BoM used to say:

"[The Book of Mormon] is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel."

It now says:

"[The Book of Mormon] is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel."

(This is certainly very significant, but it's somewhat confusing, if the goal of the Mormon church is to mainstream with Christianity.)

In the new intro to OD2: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

You think it might have something to do with BY not wanting to give the PH to his slaves? That's a pretty clear insight and the records exist.

When you consider this new statement, what they are confirming is that Church Leaders up to 1978 operated a racially discriminating policy that was not from a revelation.

Tacit confirmation that Church Leaders DO lead the Church astray.

and why was a revelation required to stop a policy of racism that was not started by revelation?

Look at page 8 on the side by side comparison.

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

They removed a link to "History of the Church" and replaced it with just Joseph Smith's history (no quotes).

What more evidence do you need that the church is discouraging people from reading "History of the Church"?

That side-by-side comparison is very handy. Thanks for the link!

They still date polygamy to the 1840s I see

Yes.
I think this is forced upon them by the historical record showing that, prior to 1842 Joseph publicly denied he was polygamous.
To state in the canon that it started in 1831 would be to admit Joseph lied about it.

Not only do they date polygamy to the 1840s, there's also this change:

"...including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage."

My copy of the D&C states:

"including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives."

I seriously doubt that this is wiggle room just in case the church ever allows Mary to marry Bob, Steve, and Josh, but it's highly significant. "Plural marriage" certainly sounds a lot nicer and a lot less chauvinistic than "plurality of wives."

Man, that Book of Abraham change is huge.

I need to save that pdf somewhere special.

I'm surprised they didn't take this opportunity to change some rough spots in JST as well, like Luke 10:22.

"The Church History Chronology has been deleted from the triple combination. A more comprehensive version will be made available on the Church History website, allowing for regular updates"

Hahaha. "regular updates".

By the way, these changes have already been rolled out in the online scriptures on lds.org.

Crap. I shouldn't have read this. I have too much work to do today. However, A TBM friend of mine sent me the link claiming "wonderful adjustments" and "Today is a very good day!"

Looks like the apostates have generated the need for a revelation.

Too bad my bishop already told me I was forfeiting my blessings for pointing out some of these issues.

My favorite was simply this: "...errors in spelling and punctuation in the text have been corrected to ensure fidelity to the earliest manuscripts and editions."

That would be a hot mess of crapola.

Also this: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares
otherwise..."

I love all that "everlasting" and "God is unchangeble" stuff, don't you?

I hereby predict... okay, PROPHESY that in the year 2030, the following statement:

"The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise"

will be changed to:

"The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is Simon’s standard for marriage unless Simon says otherwise"

but only to provide greater clarity and adherence to the original manuscripts, housed in the church's vault that is open to visitors under close supervision, so as not to further deface priceless old documents about Simon and what he says.

The Book of Mormon, the most corrected book on the face of the earth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2013 09:22AM by kori.

hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Excellent kori! Two thumbs up for that comment.

The GAs received a letter from our poster's 11 year old...

For being the most correct book, it sure has a a hell of a lot of changes...

The part that gets me, is how they changed D & C the book that was direct inspiration from god. Oh I am sorry, I forget, they are still talking to god.

"D&C 134:6—”all men show respect” to “all men owe respect” (changed show to owe)"

They are stepping it up. from show to OWE.

The sheep will believe this evidence of continuing revelation, even if it contradicts previous "inspired" statements. So much for the BoM being he most correct book. BTW, JSJ seems to have had hearing problems or the Lard is a poor speller and grammarian.

Celeste Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sheep will believe this evidence of continuing revelation,

I'm currently swapping emails with a TBM who thinks exactly this.

Have you read this paragraph yet?

"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 United 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 by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church"

This paragraph is really misleading in a lot of ways:

1 - "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise"

That sentence just makes my skin crawl.

2 - "From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal"

This is especially misleading because it WAS ALWAYS illegal, not just due to laws passed between 1860 and 1880

3 - "After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church"

Again a very misleading sentence. This did not end polygamy in the church (see http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#1890)

evanderbild Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you read this paragraph yet?
>
> "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 United 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
> by the Church as authoritative and binding on
> October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the
> practice of plural marriage in the Church"
>
> This paragraph is really misleading in a lot of
> ways:
>
> 1 - "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that
> monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless
> He declares otherwise"
>
> That sentence just makes my skin crawl.
>
> 2 - "From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United
> States government passed laws to make this
> religious practice illegal"
>
> This is especially misleading because it WAS
> ALWAYS illegal, not just due to laws passed
> between 1860 and 1880
>
> 3 - "After receiving revelation, President Wilford
> Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was
> accepted by the Church as authoritative and
> binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of
> the practice of plural marriage in the Church"
>
> Again a very misleading sentence. This did not end
> polygamy in the church (see
> http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#1
> 890)


Could the Mormon god be preparing to "declare" that gay marriage is acceptable now?

We all know that in a couple of years all the TBMs will be saying that the perfect church never changed and it has always taught the new version.