Why did Joseph Smith make changes to the Doctrine and Covenants??? Ep. 182 

Way to pay attention, haha!

I noticed the Mom jeans but don't have a clue what it means.

exmo

The Exmo comments.

I’m sure they purge comments that make it clear their religion is Pluto nuts.

The problem with this whole defense is that it makes revelation meaningless. I think all of us can understand the idea of editing. God puts ideas in our heads but we form the words and write it down. Later we check spelling and grammar and possibly make the wording a bit smoother. I think we can all get behind that, but that is drastically different from removing large chunks of revelation. So this defense suggests that large portions of the D&C were revealed, taught to the church who took them as revealed fact, to then be removed at some later time. This isn't editing. This is false prophecy.

@@blusheep2 no way when you get that revelation the spirit is still with you when you record it, and changes can happen. I mean we are still mortal and God knows that. Do you think he’s going to give a person revelation once and if they write it down wrong he’s going to say “ oh well” No

There is a third part too--the ongoing spirit that will reveal different parts to you as you continue to live your life. As long as it was given through the spirit, it is of God.

@@blusheep2 So you reject Isaiah 28:9-13 as a true principle? What standard are you using for true revelation? Maybe a twisted version of Sola scriptura? Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

@@soneedanap I'm just going off of my own experiences and people I've talked to

The church didn't reprint the D&C until then so they couldn't have changed it. Think about all they were going through once they came to the Salt Lake valley up until then...reprinting something that large in the number of copies they wanted wasn't high on their priority list.

@@JediMasterHilljr There would be no need to change anything if they simply told the truth from the beginning. See how lies can complicate things unnecessarily? See how you're making excuses for them?

So why did LDS Prophets teach as doctrine that black people were lesser beings? This was God's word according to the Prophets. It is almost as if they never were prophets, just people claiming to be prophets. you cannot be a mouthpiece of the Lord if you teach opposite what the Lord does. (especially claiming that the source of the false doctrine is of God)

And why did he had under age wifes and in Nephi he told The messiah will be from Bethlehem………..

I see no response to your comment. I wonder if he has done anything with it yet.

Thank you for your comment. We understand that you have concerns about the historical accuracy and authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the Church's teachings. Like any religious texts, the Book of Mormon has undergone some changes throughout the years, for example, typesetting and formatting to make it more readable for the modern audience. These changes do not affect the core message and teachings of the book, which is to testify of Jesus Christ and to teach spiritual truths. We have covered this topic and you are welcome to listen to it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J0E_Cp8D_g8.html Regarding the temple ceremony, it is true that there have been some changes made to the ceremony throughout the years, but these changes are consistent with the Church's belief in continuing revelation and its effort to make the ceremony more meaningful and relevant to its members. I'd encourage you to watch this video where we dive deeper into this topic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-glJzMcNWn3c.html As far as the temple's origins, and your suspicions of it deriving from freemasonry, we've also explored that topic as well. You can view that episode here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PhjBefSrqnE.html We understand that you may have different perspectives and beliefs, and we respect your opinion on this matter. We encourage you to continue your own study and research on this topic, to watch the suggested videos I've linked above, and if you have any more question or doubts, please don't hesitate to reach out to us, we'll be happy to help you.

If anyone adds to these things. God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, Revelations 22:18-19.

@@hollayevladimiroff131 Christian, Secular, and LDS scholars alike have noted that the book of revelations was likely written prior to any of the other books of the New Testament. (Around 60 AD as opposed to around 90 AD for most of the other books.) If that verse is true in your interpretation then the Bible should consist of the Old Testament AND the book of revelations and nothing more. Clearly that’s not what either of us believe. And seeing as Revelations refers to itself as a book, it’s safe to assume that verse only means you cannot add to or change the revelations John received while on Patmos. So truly, I understand your concerns, it’s out of respect for the Bible, but please do not take biblical passages out of context to tell another group of Christians that they’re damned.

​@@hollayevladimiroff131 Revelation is the book of prophecy, not the bible. The bible is a collection of works. This warning is about the prophecy contained in Revelation. That is all. There is no scriptural basis for a closed canon. If Revelation 22:18, 19 could be used for this purpose then Deuteronomy 4:2 would stop us from getting to Revelation

What is said is, that the bible is translated incorrectly and that many plain and precious truths have been removed. We use the king James version, just like many others. The word translated, isn't about what the text says so much, otherwise lds wouldn't use it. It's how false teachers use the exact same words to put forth the false doctrines. That's the translation problem. We all read the same words in black and white, and churches have come forth with there abominations before the Lord

God wants malleable servants so He can make them into the instruments He intends them to be.

@@natertott75 you are under hypnosis

@@natertott75 he’ll do that in everyone’s individual lives, no by changing fabricated “scriptures” in order to make you believe what isn’t true

Thank you! 😊

I believe they also have a video on editions of the Book of Mormon

I am not sure what you mean by EME, so I can't say whether or not it complicates the Theory or not, but we believe God speaks to us according to our understanding and so when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon it was done in Josephs understanding. The Book of Mormon has had 6 editions since the original publication but unlike the Doctrine and Covenants, edits to this weren't to add or take away but rather to edit mistakes that popped up. Some of these mistakes were made by Joseph's scribes who either miswrote or misheard somethings Joseph said while he was translating. Some of these edits were made to correct mistakes that occurred while printing. Some of the edits were made to make the verse a little more clear, but don't change the meaning of the scriptures. Does that help clarify your question?

According to this logic the most obvious conclusion is that the Book of Mormon is a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination...

@@richardnelson3538 Yeah that's good clarification. But ultimately I wondering why the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are different? Why does one only need grammatical corrections and the other is allowed corrections in syntax? BTW, by EME I was referring to Early Modern English. That theory, as I understand it, states that the words were given to Joseph Smith using words he was not familiar with. Compare this to the video here which says the D&C was given in JS's language.

The church has explicitly stated "Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing."

@@RyanMercer where is this stated?

@@Whiskey.Tango.Actual www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-19?lang=eng "Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing."

@@RyanMercer wow! I never noticed that before. I wonder why this is so explicit?

Bingo

You are posting these because you don’t understand your own scripture citations. None of these are a problem for “mormonism”.

If it was a God speaking, yeah, His words should not be changed or updated. (if we are talking about a God of Righteousness) If God changes His word, then He is either a liar, or a respector of persons, or not a God of righteousness at all. You cannot follow the commandments if God just keeps chanving the rules. You will never know what is true or what He wants.

@@sertinduhm6378 So, when God speaks, he should speak ONCE, say everything he ever wants to say, and then never, ever speak again, correct?

​@@talkofchrist As far as giving commandments goes, yes. He could remind us what the commandments were from time to time, but the second He changes His commandments, God's credibility as a righteous God is lost.

@@sertinduhm6378 interesting. Are you a Bible-believing Christian? Do you believe you still need to follow the ten commandments and all the other comments in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy?

​@@talkofchrist I would not say I am a Bible believing Christian. I believe there is a high possibility for some form of a God of Creation, but not necessarily of Righteousness.

Jeremiah 17 9-10 9 ¶ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 10 I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing. The answer, It's the Spirit. The answer will come by every man according to his ways and the fruits of our doing. Yes, it requires effort, and yes, the revelation can change according to our ways (experiences), and our doing (Spiritual work-our relationship with the Lord). Love requires effort! The Two Great Commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

@@jamesclemmons How do you determine what is the spirit and what is a mere deceit of your heart?

@Mike Foxtrot that is probably the deepest and truest question regarding spirituality to ever exist. The answer comes from years of intimacy with the Spirit, hours of pondering and meditation. The answer comes from building a personal relationship with the Holy Ghost, to the point that you can discern his language and his character apart from your own. Most people don't want to put in this work and so most people just trust their leaders, some of whom have put in the work and some of whom have not

@@StewartFletcher If you don’t have a reliable method for determining what is the spirit vs. what is a deceit of your heart in the first place, how do you know you are actually building a relationship with an external entity and not just following those deceits of your heart?

It comes down to two points. 1. Continuing Revelation 2. Authority to lead the church We believe that God has revealed many things, that he is revealing his will to people now, and that there are more things he has yet to reveal. When Moses left with the people of Israel, they lived in a certain manner. After some point Moses received new revelations, and so they made adjustments in conformation to instructions they received from the Lord. And this pattern continues on even after Moses. In the case of the great apostasy, we believe that changes were made to the church that was not inspired by God, and also by people who did not receive the authority to do so, like Moses received it. It is important to take note, that we believe the authority from God was eventually taken away after the loss of the apostles. There is a scripture in the New Testament that state, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. You can, setting aside Christian traditions and biases, look at the text in the New Testament and compare them to how the LDS Church speak and act. That one way you could do it academically. You could also study the church, the scriptures, and then ask God in the name of Jesus Christ if the church is true. And if it is true, the your question will naturally be resolved.

Jeremiah 17:9

​@@MerkieAE Jeremiah 17:10

Feeling the influence of the Spirit of the Lord It is taught by Jesus Christ himself in Luke 22:32

The mormon God surely puts way more stumbling rocks in the Doctrine and history of his "restored" church than lucifer does. 😂😂😂

Sounds like an incomplete maybe? Because the Holy Spirit would give additional revelations and a stronger testimony, plus more knowledge of the truth, added to what it testified to be true. At least that is what I understand.

@@violettasauveterre5100 But that isn't what he seemed to say. He said and showed large potions of the doctrine of Covenants that were removed. That is a simplification of revelation not the adding to it. The point is that revelation from our prophets are not trustworthy nor credible for they may change at the prophets whim.

@@blusheep2 I wouldn't say a large portion. Large portion of certain verses, but not of the whole thing. It really depends on what changes were being made, to analyze them with the Spirit. Commandments change depending on the situation. For example Isaiah tells people that they should avoid talking to strangers at people at night. This was because during that time there were murders hunting people at night. Today in a much safer environment I think it's okay to do so.

@@violettasauveterre5100 I don't really know. What he showed was at least 3 or 4 paragraphs worth. We know that he has changed entire revelations though. Joseph Smith taught for a time that polygamy was required to enter the celestial heaven. That was then removed. That means something. That isn't a small thing. Where does it say in Isaiah that people shouldn't talk to stange people at night? I can't find it. I agree that the type of changes are important. Spelling errors are meaningless in everything but the BoM. Content change is what is a red flag. Joseph's polygamy was a big thing.

Maybe I'm too easy going, but it seems like a small thing to me. It might not be for you and I am not trying to diminish that, but he made a mistake, and changed it. Even if we look at this from a fundamental doctrine standpoint its the same. Man and woman sealed for eternity. He didnt change that. Churches make lots of mistakes all the time, even ones we believe are real. I think we set unrealistic expectations sometimes on others whether pastor, prophet, or church goer. There was only ever 1 perfect man, and I don't think he ever wrote or translated a single thing. Just my 1 cent.

@Zach B, I would like to address your concern regarding the First Vision. We actually have 4 accounts of the vision and I will include an a link below that will take you first to summary of the events and audience he is speaking to at the time and allow you to read the visions. However to answer your question about why are there differences in each account, the simple fact is we as humans remember things differently all the time. For example my engagement story, I have told the story hundreds of time, and I would say not one of them is the same. Heck I told the story a few days ago, and I skipped the enitre 30-minute build up for the story and told what happened a minute before me asking my wife to marry me, to explain to someone why something I was making my wife said what it did. There was no need to say everything else, even though I remembered it all, I focused on the part the person I was telling needed to hear in the moment. However, my experience was not a vision or revelation of God, so let me give a second example of someone seeing Christ and then giving several slightly different accounts. The scriptures record at least 3 different accounts of Paul's vision (I am pretty confident there are more but I couldn't figure out where they were). The 3 I am referencing are found in Acts 9:1-9, Acts 22:3-11, and Acts 26:4-20. I am going to point a few differences between the accounts. In Acts 9, he says there were other men with him and that these men "stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man."(Verse 7) In Chapter 22 he again talks about these men and says they "saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of that spake to me." and then in chapter 26 he doesn't mention the men that are with him. Slight differences though I will point out that Chapter 22 and 9 contradict each other here and says in that The men heard Christ and the other says they didn't hear him but they saw the light. I would suggest this discrepancy was just a matter of someone correcting Paul, since he probably got the info second-hand. In all three accounts he says that Christ says "Saul, Saul why persecutest thou me?" which Paul responds "Who art thou, Lord" and the Lord says "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." here there is a divergence in his story, In chapter 9 and 22, Paul says, what would have me do, then Christ says go, to Damascus and I will tell you what to do, then Paul finds out he is blind. In Chapter 26 Christ continues saying buy hey I'm calling you to minister to others and witness of me (Sorry a poor summary of 3 verses) and then Paul says he went to Damascus and does not mention he was blinded. Does these difference invalidate Paul's account, no, they just mean that he remembered these accounts in various way to emphasize certain parts to certain audiences. If you look at Smith's account, you can tell that he emphazing different things. In the 1832 account which is an entry in his personal journal, he is emphazing the fact that when he went to pray he was burden by his own sins and that Christ came and told him he was forgiven. In the 1835 version, he talking to someone who was visiting Kirtland, and is emphazing the fact that part of his reason for praying was to know which of the religions was true, he then prayed and saw 2 personages, that he does not identify in this vision, appear testifying of Christ. The 1938 version was published for the Church in general and is the longest of the 4 accounts, to explain the vision, he gives more detail than any of the other accounts in this one, in order to emphasize why the church came about. The 1842 account was written for people unfamiliar with the church to understand again how the church began. We need to keep in mind the Audience, 1832 version was for himself, likely to remind himself that God has forgiven him, the 1835 was to tell the story to a visitor, and the 1838 was for the Church, and the 1842 was for non-members. However as you read them all together you can see where they fit together, Heavenly Father Comes down, Christ Comes down, HF says "Here is my beloved son, hear him". JC Says "Your sins are forgiven thee" Joseph asks about which Church to join, Christ answers, and he saw other angels, (whether throughout, or after Christ stops speaking, I have no idea), however I don't see the information contradicting itself, I see Joseph summarizing the events and leaving a lot of what he saw and heard personal for himself, just like Paul summarized the events he saw and heard differently. I hope that helps. Here's the link I mentioned. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

The church has already answered these questions. You can find more information on the different tellings of Joseph's first visions on the church website.

So you are advocating for changing revelation to fit your modern sensibilities and not because the Father gave you further revelation but because you think it sounds better?

The sibling comment pretty much addresses your comment as well as it should: changes to scriptural text shall not be at the whim of men, but only as guided by the Spirit. I'll amend also, that reading 2 Nephi 5:21-23 as literal skin color, I believe is a grave misinterpretation of the text. The counter to that interpretation happens later in the same book, in 2 Nephi 26:33. (And yes, if the incorrect interpretation is the result of a priesthood ban, that is on former Church leaders, not the text.)

@@mikeonthecomputer I don't think the sibling comment helps at all because the original revelation was supposedly guided by the Spirit. The Spirit guided poorly and so needed to inspire a removal of significant parts. At this point there is no credibility to the prophet because he obviously doesn't know the difference between the voice of god and his own. So much so that many revelations needed to be removed altogether. This is the last kind of characteristic we would expect to find in a prophet. This makes the skin issue a problem as well. The church was extremely racist in its early days. That could be chalked up to a misinterpretation of the text, to be sure. The problem is that TCHOJCLDS's own prophets were the ones making revealed decisions and publishing them in a book that is considered revealed scripture. We do know how Joseph translate the Book of Mormon unless we aren't going to trust the witnesses. His wife was very detailed about her role in the transcription of the plates, saying that even if she spelled something wrong, Joseph would stop, knowing she had done so, and would correct her spelling. That is her testimony. So, nothing about that speaks to a transcription process that was subjectively written from Smith's own vocabulary. In fact the record is that the line would appear on the seer stone in the hat and he would read it off to Oliver. So where is the room for his personal style? It would make more sense if he was simply sitting at a desk and writing down the story as it came to him through the still small voice of the Holy Ghost, but that just isn't what the testimonies demonstrate. Now lets look at the Nephi verses closely. Nephi 5:21-23 "21 And he had caused the a cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a d skin of e blackness to come upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be a loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that a mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. Your interpretation works through verse 21a. "hardened their hearts" paired with "become like unto a flint." So, essentially "dark hearts." The interpretation falls apart after this point, 21b. At This point they are being called "white"(could still work) but then "exceedingly fair and delightsome." This is meaningful because it is contrasted with their dark hearts. They are said to be physically attractive and were enticing. By the end of the verse we see that the "blackness" is no longer about their black hearts but about their "skin of blackness." You can't really confuse that with "a heart of blackness." To hammer this home they are told that they shouldn't mix with them or they will be cursed with the same "skin of blackness." Now 2 Nephi 26:33 is a verse that simply makes salvation available to all, including the cursed of chapter 5. It doesn't change the meaning of 5 at all. Where in chapter 26 does it redefine the curse of chapter 5? I don't think your reinterpretation is faithful to the text and changing it so that it reads better to modern sympathies is dishonest and manipulative.

The Book of Mormon had changes also. The manner in which The Book of Mormon was revealed/translated is a while other can of worms.

In first Nephi there are 4 verses that call Jesus the savior and eternal father, in the 1830 version. Later versions changed it to "son of the eternal father." The BoM was a fax machine but the future church changed it to fit their sinful doctrine of exaltation. You be the judge.

The shortest answer is that we don't really know how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. He likely had his own favorite word choices (see when "therefore" or "wherefore" are more common in the text), perhaps altered phrases to suit our needs in the latter days, and generally did not act as a "fax machine". This channel has multiple videos about translation and mistakes in the Book of Mormon. :)

Joseph was never a “Fax machine” lol he dictated the Book of Mormon likely from notes placed within his hat. It’s speculated the original manuscript is a collaboration between Joseph, Sydney Rigdon, and maybe Oliver Cowdrey. All of the changes that came after the initial publishing were grammatical changes (they took out about half of the “and it came to pass”es so if there’s a lot now imagine how much there were in the first edition lmao), or word changes that made the book less controversial, like changing “white” to “pure”, or doctrinal like changing God and Jesus to be two different people instead of one

@@blusheep2 Read 1 Peter 5:12. The idea of being exalted by God is a Bible principle that was taught to the Saints.

Times doesn't change truth, but it does change people. The reason Jesus had to come and correct His Gospel for the Jews was because people were putting truth in their own context. Our understanding of God is developed over time since Jesus lived and died, it would make sense that Jesus would do that again.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 So a supposed all knowing, and all powerful God lacked the ability to communicate properly and let people understand His will? Or was it that God intentionally made it so man would not understand (Ether 12:27) either way, it does not make sense for a God of this calibur to be doing such things.

@@sertinduhm6378 All you said is it doesn't make sense for a God to create someone like you. But to me it does.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 you are not making any sense. If God changes because humans change, what does that say about God?

@@sertinduhm6378 It makes sense if God created humans who are changeable that the way he revealed things would be based on their changing understanding not on God's perfect understanding.