New Editions of the Standard Works

[Anonymous]

The Church just announced that there is a new online edition available now and that the print version will be published in August. I want to highlight two changes – the headings to Official Declarations 1 (polygamy) and 2 (Priesthood Ban repeal). I REALLY like the changes I’ve seen, but I think everyone here will be interested mostly in the two headings to OD 1 & OD2 (with a note that some heading and study guide changes are massive – like no longer referencing no death before the fall as applying to all life, including animals, which even more directly leaves evolution open as the method by which physical bodies were created).

Here is the heading for OD1, with the parts that hit me hardest bolded:

Quote:

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.

Here is the heading for OD2, including my bolding:

Quote:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. [/b]

Two points:

1) The heading for OD1 says the Manifesto “led to” the repeal of polygamy, NOT that it “ended” polygamy. I really like that wording, especially in a heading that, by definition, has to be concise and summary in nature. I especially like the clear statement that monogamy is the standard and polygamy is an exception.

2) The heading for OD2 makes absolutely no claim that the Priesthood ban was inspired or was the result of revelation. There is no justification for it in the heading – none. In fact, it says directly that black men were ordained in Joseph’s time, and it calls the ban a “practice”, not a “doctrine”. It also uses the word “clear” when talking about church records, which I think is accurate and a good way to state it in concise terms.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I REALLY like the section about blacks. Is offers a great short introduction to the dilemma and calls it a practice.

I see this as a HUGE tiny step in “inauguration” when it comes to church history. Great stuff! I can’t wait to see where the church will be in 10 years from now. With the whole mormonsandgays.com and continuing progressive thinking, I think the future looks bright!

[Anonymous]

Indifferent to evolution, but the black material is welcomed from this quarter.

Any other changes? Personally I would like a Bible Dictionary type thing for the other scriptures. A concordance would be nice but is maybe redundant in these days of computers.

[Anonymous]

Some great changes and a wonderful reaction from the church in being willing to admit to the complications in restoration scripture.

1981 version: “a translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing the writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

Today: “An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

[Anonymous]

I really like the info in OD2, because the church has been unofficially saying that over the last decade, and now it is official… it was a practice, not a doctrine, it was started for unknown reasons after the time of JS, the church leadership felt it couldn’t simply set it aside without direct instruction from God, which was finally received. I agree with all that, and it’s good to see it in writing.

As for the info for OD1… yawn. It doesn’t change anything. Everything in that statement has already been said, officially, by the church. It doesn’t replace D&C 132 as an eternal principle, as I think we’ve discussed well in other threads. In that thread on What IS the Current Church Position on Polygamy? http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4043 I think we kind of established that the doctrine is:

1- Polygamy is a legitimate and eternal institution, sanctioned by God (D&C 132:61-65)

2- Polygamy in doctrinal terms, means one man, many women, and does not go the other way (D&C 132:61-63)

3- Polygamy is not to be practiced currently on the earth (OD1)

4- Polygamy is not essential to salvation or exaltation (Seminary Student Study Guide, 2005, p150)

5- There will be exalted men who have multiple wives in the next life (D&C 132:63)

OD1 text boringly confirms half of 1, all of 3, and says nothing either way about 2, 4, and 5, so we are left to other church statements about those. In fact, it is interesting that OD2 intro confirms that it never was a doctrine, only a practice, so that it can be permanently set aside, while OD1 intro reinforces that it is doctrinal, based on revelation, and that the practice merely not in effect right now.

[Anonymous]

I welcome these changes and I want to spend time looking at the side by side comparisons. From what I can see the changes tend to be more complicated and nuanced and more comprehensively truthful. For me polygamy is a stumbling block so any official clarification is helpful. Evolution isn’t quite as big, but I find that allowing for the thing that evolution represents (scientific evidence) is a very good thing.

Most of the rank and file of the church will not care much, but for some people it will be a noticeable step forward. I know several people for whom perceived institutional racism is a deal-breaker and this will get us incrementally more acceptable to them. It may make more subtle views of doctrine more acceptable over time among members because some of the changes explain that historical / cultural norms can unintentionally graduate to become generally accepted “doctrine.”

[Anonymous]

For reference, here are side-by-side comparisons of the D&C and PofGP changes:

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

[Anonymous]

Thanks, On Own Now. I love that the Church published the side-by-side view of the changes.

Also, I totally forgot to mention how excited I was about the change in wording to the Book of Abraham description. That alone is HUGE to me. Thanks, mackay11, for highlighting that.

[Anonymous]

Hmm I don’t think stating that the reasons for the ban were unknown is totally honest.

It begs the question, what else is done for uncertain reasons?

[Anonymous]

I am very glad to hear this. Growing up in the 70s we were taught all the old things the old way and later in life it caused so much confusion to my soul. This makes it more doable for me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Hmm I don’t think stating that the reasons for the ban were unknown is totally honest.

Honestly 😆 , I think the statement is both accurate and honest – especially in the context of a very short summary. It’s not totally “comprehensive” – but that is impossible in that setting.

I know lots of historians who think they can estimate the time of the start of the ban and the things that caused it, but even within that group that studies the issue almost obsessively, there still is disagreement. For example, I accept the general timeline of the formal decision being around 1847 and the stimuli being a confrontation with one black member who got a little crazy in some ways and the issue of mixed-marriage sealing, but there simply isn’t anything in the records I’ve seen that I would call “clear insight” into a specific time and exact reason.

I think the operative word is “clear” – and I can accept that.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It begs the question, what else is done for uncertain reasons?

Yes, it does – and I LOVE that it opens that window wide.

[Anonymous]

This is really interesting. I have gone through a few of the changes and it is an interesting insight into what is going on. I am excited as it is high time for a new edition of the scriptures. Perhaps hymnbooks will be next.

The biggest thing for me is this:

Quote:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).

MALE AND FEMALE!!!! they didn’t quote the whole verse, they quoted very selected phrases and there is no reason why they needed to include male and female to make the point about the priesthood declaration. Put that together with the much lower mission age for young women meaning many more sisters on missions, and the fact that Relief Society and Priesthood and YM/YW’s now have the same curriculum. It really makes me wonder if the church is leaning towards giving women the priesthood.

Seriously when I read that phrase in that context it was like an electric shock. Here’s hoping….

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

It begs the question, what else is done for uncertain reasons?

Yes, it does – and I LOVE that it opens that window wide.

completely agree!

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

Hmm I don’t think stating that the reasons for the ban were unknown is totally honest.

It is a dishonest quote. Completely dishonest. And the church should be utterly embarrassed by it.

The church needs to admit it made a mistake, admit it (the church) was wrong and completely apologize for their past racists doctrines and policies. THE END.

They have not done that. They will not do it. These half-hearted acknowledgements of racism (Who? Me?) while continually denying any type of fault or wrong doing on the part of past prophets and apostles and the church organization, isn’t going to cut it.

It will not go away until that happens. Sorry. but it won’t heal just by ignoring the scab and hoping people forget, and trying to apply apologetics and word games to explain it away.

Quote:

Official Statement of the First Presidency

August 17, 1949 wrote:The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position

Quote:

Official Statement of the First Presidency wrote:The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind; namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of the principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the principle is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood, is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the Priesthood by Negroes

Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, pp.406- 407.

Dear Brother Nelson:

As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:

We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God’s children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God’s dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham’s seed and their position vis-à-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.

We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been “most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning ‘marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit’]. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Faithfully yours,

/s/

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

[Author]

Posts