Scripture Chapter Heading Changes

[topcat]

Warning:

If you dig too deep in exploring the WHY you won't like what you find if you put the telestial org known as the Church up on a celestial pedestal. Of if you even unknowingly idolize the Brethren.

Back in 1981, and you can go back and read it for yourself, when the new triples and quads were coming out, I'm speaking of Oct General Conference, what happened was 3 excerpts were added to OD1. The part that says the president can't lead the Church astray was inserted.

Who is to blame? Nobody takes responsibility. No announcement was made in General Conference. No vote taken.

It just miraculously appeared. Obviously, the buck has HAS to stop somewhere, and that would be the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles.

To suggest they ALL knew nothing about that addition is preposterous.

Perhaps SOME or A FEW didn't know. And it was insidiously inserted in the dark of night, and then once they were published by the millions and distributed it would be TOO LATE for any apostle to bring the addition up without causing a big scene.

So it remained.

Who did it? Some dark forces within the hierarchy with MAJOR CLOUT.

That one insertion paved the way for the eventual complete slide into idolatry of the rank and file members because after the top brass would be fully corrupted, it wouldn't matter after decades of drilling into members' heads that the president can't lead the Church astray. Most members REALLY and SINCERELY believe that cult idea. It's sick brainwashing transparent to people not bedazzled by the mantra.

So if something that major and destructive could be added to our canon, it's an easy task to write the chapter summaries with a spin to cause the reader to interpret the chapter a certain way. But again, no vote was ever done on that. It's a TOP-DOWN dictatorial management style.

[iWriteStuff]

It's a TOP-DOWN dictatorial management style.

Seriously, though - tell us how you really feel?

[topcat]

It's a TOP-DOWN dictatorial management style.

Seriously, though - tell us how you really feel?

But with people dressed in fine suits who speak in a still small, NPR voice.

[Chip]

Warning:

If you dig too deep in exploring the WHY you won't like what you find if you put the telestial org known as the Church up on a celestial pedestal. Of if you even unknowingly idolize the Brethren.

Back in 1981, and you can go back and read it for yourself, when the new triples and quads were coming out, I'm speaking of Oct General Conference, what happened was 3 excerpts were added to OD1. The part that says the president can't lead the Church astray was inserted.

Who? Nobody takes responsibility. No announcement was made in General Conference. No vote taken.

It just miraculously appeared. Obviously, the buck has HAS to stop somewhere, and that would be the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles.

To suggest they ALL knew nothing about that addition is preposterous.

Perhaps SOME or A FEW didn't know. And it was insidiously inserted in the dark of night, and then once they were published by the millions and distributed it would be TOO LATE for any apostle to bring the addition up without causing a big scene.

So it remained.

Who did it? Some dark forces within the hierarchy with MAJOR CLOUT.

That one insertion paved the way for the complete apostasy of the rank and file members because after the top would be fully corrupted, it wouldn't matter after decades of drilling into members' heads that the president can't lead the Church astray. Most members REALLY and SINCERELY believe that cult idea. It's sick brainwashing transparent to people not bedazzled by the mantra.

So if something that major and destructive could be added to our canon, it's an easy task to write the chapter summaries with a spin to cause the reader to interpret the chapter a certain way. But again, no vote was ever done on that. It's a TOP-DOWN dictatorial management style.

Topcat, could you show 'before' and 'after' differences of what was changed? I hadn't heard about this. Thanks.

[gkearney]

OK, before everyone jumps up and down about changes to Official Declaration 1 we need to do a bit of a reality check here. They did not change the text of Official Declaration 1 in the 1981 edition. What they did do was to add some commentary following the text of Official Declaration 1. See below. I would say that while the commentary may be helpful in understanding the context of how Official Declaration 1 came to be, like the headings in scripture the commentary, it was never canonized as scripture by common consent is not in fact scripture, any more than say the maps, dictionary topical guide or other similar such supplemental materials are.

This paragraph from the October 1981 Ensign explains these changes:

The new additions to the text are sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 137; D&C 138] (Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead, respectively), excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto, and the text of the First Presidency’s statement on the revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy male members, which appears here under the title “Official Declaration—2.” The Manifesto itself, which previously was labeled in the Doctrine and Covenants as “Official Declaration,” will now be designated as “Official Declaration—1.” Both of the official declarations will be published at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the statements by President Woodruff will appear directly after Official Declaration—1.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

[bbsion]

OK, before everyone jumps up and down about changes to Official Declaration 1 we need to do a bit of a reality check here. They did not change the text of Official Declaration 1 in the 1981 edition. What they did do was to add some commentary following the text of Official Declaration 1. See below. I would say that while the commentary may be helpful in understanding the context of how Official Declaration 1 came to be, like the headings in scripture the commentary, it was never canonized as scripture by common consent is not in fact scripture, any more than say the maps, dictionary topical guide or other similar such supplemental materials are.

This paragraph from the October 1981 Ensign explains these changes:

The new additions to the text are sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 137; D&C 138] (Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead, respectively), excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto, and the text of the First Presidency’s statement on the revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy male members, which appears here under the title “Official Declaration—2.” The Manifesto itself, which previously was labeled in the Doctrine and Covenants as “Official Declaration,” will now be designated as “Official Declaration—1.” Both of the official declarations will be published at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the statements by President Woodruff will appear directly after Official Declaration—1.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Just out of curiosity, why are they declarations and not scripture? Why didn't the church at that time, and the church since then, not canonize the declarations? They are touted in the church as just as important to follow as scripture, so why are they still only declarations?

[topcat]

Warning:

If you dig too deep in exploring the WHY you won't like what you find if you put the telestial org known as the Church up on a celestial pedestal. Of if you even unknowingly idolize the Brethren.

Back in 1981, and you can go back and read it for yourself, when the new triples and quads were coming out, I'm speaking of Oct General Conference, what happened was 3 excerpts were added to OD1. The part that says the president can't lead the Church astray was inserted.

Who? Nobody takes responsibility. No announcement was made in General Conference. No vote taken.

It just miraculously appeared. Obviously, the buck has HAS to stop somewhere, and that would be the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles.

To suggest they ALL knew nothing about that addition is preposterous.

Perhaps SOME or A FEW didn't know. And it was insidiously inserted in the dark of night, and then once they were published by the millions and distributed it would be TOO LATE for any apostle to bring the addition up without causing a big scene.

So it remained.

Who did it? Some dark forces within the hierarchy with MAJOR CLOUT.

That one insertion paved the way for the complete apostasy of the rank and file members because after the top would be fully corrupted, it wouldn't matter after decades of drilling into members' heads that the president can't lead the Church astray. Most members REALLY and SINCERELY believe that cult idea. It's sick brainwashing transparent to people not bedazzled by the mantra.

So if something that major and destructive could be added to our canon, it's an easy task to write the chapter summaries with a spin to cause the reader to interpret the chapter a certain way. But again, no vote was ever done on that. It's a TOP-DOWN dictatorial management style.

Topcat, could you show 'before' and 'after' differences of what was changed? I hadn't heard about this. Thanks.

Sure. And you can find images of the pre 1981 official declaration 1. You probably have one laying around your house.

Everything above this heading was the original. Everything after it was added in 1981 secretly:

Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

Here is the most damaging part that was added that is wholly anti-Christ and in my opinion what mostly shoulders the blame for the leading church membership into idolatry, who after decades of hearing this false teaching, and accepting it as truth, have come to worship the Brethren as idols.

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.)

[topcat]

OK, before everyone jumps up and down about changes to Official Declaration 1 we need to do a bit of a reality check here. They did not change the text of Official Declaration 1 in the 1981 edition. What they did do was to add some commentary following the text of Official Declaration 1. See below. I would say that while the commentary may be helpful in understanding the context of how Official Declaration 1 came to be, like the headings in scripture the commentary, it was never canonized as scripture by common consent is not in fact scripture, any more than say the maps, dictionary topical guide or other similar such supplemental materials are.

This paragraph from the October 1981 Ensign explains these changes:

The new additions to the text are sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 137; D&C 138] (Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead, respectively), excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto, and the text of the First Presidency’s statement on the revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy male members, which appears here under the title “Official Declaration—2.” The Manifesto itself, which previously was labeled in the Doctrine and Covenants as “Official Declaration,” will now be designated as “Official Declaration—1.” Both of the official declarations will be published at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the statements by President Woodruff will appear directly after Official Declaration—1.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Just out of curiosity, why are they declarations and not scripture? Why didn't the church at that time, and the church since then, not canonize the declarations? They are touted in the church as just as important to follow as scripture, so why are they still only declarations?

Gkearney is correct from a lawyerly standpoint. They have never been voted on as scripture, like the Lectures on Faith were.

But that doesn't change the fact, as you have noted, that they are perceived as scripture.

The first official declaration was placed at the very end of the book even after the index or glossary or whatever was at the back. It was intentionally, as it should have been, separated from the revelations of Joseph Smith.

Later it was moved up before the index and right next to the last section of the Doctrine and Covenants, in a clear attempt to have it regarded as scripture. Positioning is very important because it has an impact on perception.

But the technical discussion aside, that official declaration is universally respected as scripture in the Church.

[Gideon]

The Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon

“Introductions in italics, such as in chapter headings, are not original to the text but are study helps included for convenience in reading.”


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?id=p9#p9

Chapter headings, chapter and verse breaks, footnotes, cross references and punctuation, are all study aids. Only the original text is scripture.

I saw except from a talk Elder Nelson gave many years ago that explains all of that. I think it was on one of those old FHE VHS tapes.

He even suggested experimenting with different punctuation.

[LDS Watchman]

A few thoughts.

I'm not generally a fan of the chapter headings in the scriptures either.

I usually skip them myself. I wish there was a way to skip them in the audio function on the gospel library app, as they really disrupt the flow of the story.

I think they are neccessary in the D&C though, as historical context is important for understanding the revelations.

The change in the heading for Jacob 2 is interesting. I hadn't noticed that one yet.

I think that change likely had two purposes.

The first being to cater to the feminists in the church like Wendy Nelson and Sheryl Dew and the especially the likes of those over at common consent. Most women in the church absolutely despise plural marriage. And as can be clearly observed by the endless plural marriage bashing threads on this forum, there is a growing anti-Celestial plural marriage crowd in the church. The change definitely appeases them to a certain extent. (Now if we could just get rid of the revelation in D&C 132 and change a few stories in the Old Testament then these folks would be completely appeased).

The second reason is likely a continued effort to undermine polygamous fundamentalists who believe that their plural marriages are authorized by God. The church doesn't want them to have any credibility.

This leads into the issue Topcat brought up about the additions to Declaration 1.

I believe that these additions were to undermine the fundamentalists and others who would accuse the church of being corrupt, especially in regards to having abandoned Celestial plural marriage.

And don't believe it was some wicked plot to transform the church into a cult.

Also the Lectures on Faith were never "scripture." They were voted upon as being included in the D&C, but they aren't and never were considered the word of God.

Considering some of the teachings on the nature of the Godhead and eternal progression by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, the lectures were problematic.

I wish they were still in the D&C though.

[Thinker]

Gkearney is correct from a lawyerly standpoint. They have never been voted on as scripture, like the Lectures on Faith were.

But that doesn't change the fact, as you have noted, that they are perceived as scripture...

But the technical discussion aside, that official declaration is universally respected as scripture in the Church.

That is the bottom line. When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

Who was it that said, “philosophies of men - mingled with scripture”?

[inho]

When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

This is not my experience. However, I do understand that study helps guides the way how people think. I think Topical Guide has even greater impact on the minds of members than chapter headings. So many people are too lazy to study any topic more than what is in it.

[topcat]

When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

This is not my experience. However, I do understand that study helps guides the way how people think. I think Topical Guide has even greater impact on the minds of members than chapter headings. So many people are too lazy to study any topic more than what is in it.

I don't think most members hold up the Topical Guide or Study Helps as Scripture. I think Thinker was referring to the two OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS.

[inho]

When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

This is not my experience. However, I do understand that study helps guides the way how people think. I think Topical Guide has even greater impact on the minds of members than chapter headings. So many people are too lazy to study any topic more than what is in it.

I don't think most members hold up the Topical Guide or Study Helps as Scripture. I think Thinker was referring to the two OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS.

Yeah, we know that you have issue with the text on OD2. But now you are putting words into Thinker's mouth. The way "ALL" is written in all caps means that Thinker is not referring to a particular case.

[topcat]

When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

This is not my experience. However, I do understand that study helps guides the way how people think. I think Topical Guide has even greater impact on the minds of members than chapter headings. So many people are too lazy to study any topic more than what is in it.

I don't think most members hold up the Topical Guide or Study Helps as Scripture. I think Thinker was referring to the two OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS.

Yeah, we know that you have issue with the text on OD2. But now you are putting words into Thinker's mouth. The way "ALL" is written in all caps means that Thinker is not referring to a particular case.

OD1

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Many chapter footnotes have also been changed and some are concerning, One that comes to mind is John 14:16. The teaching of Joseph Smith and the JST of the bible specifically identify "another comforter" as Jesus Christ, not the Holy Ghost. My scripture footnote rightfully identifies "another comforter" as Jesus Christ, however the new scripture footnote now wrongly refers to "another comforter" as the Holy Ghost. What I find troubling is a couple of years back President Henry B. Eyring gave a talk on the importance and gift of the Holy Ghost and he refers to John 14:16. In other words, it seems President Eyring would agree with the new chapter footnotes. More troubling is the teaching of false doctrine. Both the new footnote and President Eyring contradict JS and it begs the question, who is right? It's an important question on an important topic though I know many probably don't see it as a big deal. Or maybe Joseph was wrong and had an incorrect understanding. But I don't believe that for a second.

Lectures on Faith #4
"1 Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life."

It's imperative to have a correct understanding of the character and attributes of God. The second comforter has everything to do with this.

D&C 130:3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses:

“16. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with
you forever;
“17. Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
“18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. * *
“21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them he it is that loveth me: and he that
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
“23. If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come
unto him, and make our abode with him.”

Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn. -Joseph Smith from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 150:

[Thinker]

Many chapter footnotes have also been changed and some are concerning, One that comes to mind is John 14:16. The teaching of Joseph Smith and the JST of the bible specifically identify "another comforter" as Jesus Christ, not the Holy Ghost. My scripture footnote rightfully identifies "another comforter" as Jesus Christ, however the new scripture footnote now wrongly refers to "another comforter" as the Holy Ghost. What I find troubling is a couple of years back President Henry B. Eyring gave a talk on the importance and gift of the Holy Ghost and he refers to John 14:16. In other words, it seems President Eyring would agree with the new chapter footnotes. More troubling is the teaching of false doctrine. Both the new footnote and President Eyring contradict JS and it begs the question, who is right? It's an important question on an important topic though I know many probably don't see it as a big deal. Or maybe Joseph was wrong and had an incorrect understanding. But I don't believe that for a second.

Lectures on Faith #4
"1 Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life."

It's imperative to have a correct understanding of the character and attributes of God. The second comforter has everything to do with this.

D&C 130:3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses.

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses:

“16. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with
you forever;
“17. Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
“18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. * *
“21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them he it is that loveth me: and he that
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
“23. If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come
unto him, and make our abode with him.”

Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn. -Joseph Smith from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 150:

It does seem like a big deal, considering how recently, it’s been popular to say one has received the 2nd comforter. I believe it’s possible & awesome to have spiritual experiences with Christ - but I wouldn’t try to pinhole it into a label like that. It reminds me a bit of attempts to control - or to pretend to control spirits - what is up to God. I think some spiritual experiences need to be shared to encourage & strengthen others’ faith, though sometimes it’s sacred and I’d say each experience is too unique to label universally.

Then again, I could be way off in my understanding, so correct me if I’m mistaken. Could it be like the Pentecost - an outpouring of the Spirit? If the Spirit, Father and Christ work together as one, what difference does it make which is indicated - unless their roles are different? To know the character of God - who could ever achieve such an omniscient state? One thing I do know by experience:

• The kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:21

[Ferrisbueller]

Am I the only one that thinks some chapter headings are wrong?

[Thinker]

When most members refer to scriptures, they refer to ALL that is bound in their triple combinations.

This is not my experience. However, I do understand that study helps guides the way how people think. I think Topical Guide has even greater impact on the minds of members than chapter headings. So many people are too lazy to study any topic more than what is in it.

Yeah I think I know what you mean. I also study scriptures without the lds study guides - and by doing so I’ve often have jaw-dropping realizations. Deuteronomy 14:28-29 is an example, regarding how tithes are suppose to be distributed.

My point was if the topical guides, headings, footnotes etc were not considered an integral part of scriptures, they would be in separate manuals. When you or kids bring paper triple combinations - they include topical guides, bible dictionaries (with incorrect chronologies also taught as if scripture) etc. Often in classes, they are referred to or we as part of scripture study. They are not separate from scripture, thus when you tell a child to go get a triple combination from the library, they’ll bring back the headings, indexes etc., as part of their scriptures.

Hope that clarifies what I meant.

[MMbelieve]

Am I the only one that thinks some chapter headings are wrong?

Nope

[inho]

Am I the only one that thinks some chapter headings are wrong?

You are there with Bruce R. McConkie:

Bruce R. McConkie on the nature of chapter headings:

[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 289-90 emphasis added)

[creator]

The first edition of the Book of Mormon did have headings for some of the books.

I do prefer the fewer chapters and lack of verses in the original Book of Mormon. It's what I prefer to read when I am just reading through from beginning to end (rather than just topical studies).

first-book-of-nephi.jpg (213.35 KiB) Viewed 388 times

second-book-of-nephi.jpg (155.24 KiB) Viewed 388 times

book-of-jacob.jpg (158.53 KiB) Viewed 388 times

book-of-alma.jpg (184.78 KiB) Viewed 388 times

[inho]

The first edition of the Book of Mormon did have headings for some of the books.

That is true and they are still in the BoM. I assume that those abstracts came from the plates. At least the one for 1 Nephi reads like it is written by Nephi.

[John Tavner]

The first edition of the Book of Mormon did have headings for some of the books.

That is true and they are still in the BoM. I assume that those abstracts came from the plates. At least the one for 1 Nephi reads like it is written by Nephi.

Yeah, the first one at the start is from the actual book of mormon... the rest I don't believe they are.

[inho]

The first edition of the Book of Mormon did have headings for some of the books.

That is true and they are still in the BoM. I assume that those abstracts came from the plates. At least the one for 1 Nephi reads like it is written by Nephi.

Yeah, the first one at the start is from the actual book of mormon... the rest I don't believe they are.

I haven't check Joseph Smith papers. Do you know if they appear to be later insertions? If they were written by Joseph or Oliver, they would be obviously written after the book was translated.