Jump to content

Talk:Doctrine and Covenants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also

[edit]

I pulled this, because I think this line is a bizarre bit of trivia that is not important to the article:

The Doctrine and Covenants is often abbreviated as "D&C" which many within Mormonism dislike because the abbreviation is also used for a medical procedure, dilation and curettage, related to abortion. --John Hamer 02:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I pulled this, because the source was not cited and the statement could not be verified.

In 1876, the original Section 101 was removed[citation needed]. Written and adopted in Joseph Smith's absence, it had included the text:
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
Replacing this section is the current Section 132, which discusses the now-discontinued doctrine of plural marriage.

--Caysyka 12:17, 26 Nov 2006

There should be information in the article on what version if any the FLDS church uses. 69.234.53.82 07:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Doctrine&Covenants.jpg

[edit]

Image:Doctrine&Covenants.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why LDS Church and CofC removed Lectures on Faith

[edit]

In the lead paragraphs, an editor (Jgstokes) keeps providing a "reason" that the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C. The "reason" provided by the editor is the reason given later in the article for the LDS Church removal, but this is not necessarily the same reason it was removed by the Community of Christ. The "reason" for removal should be left to the discussions of the D&C in each individual church, not in the lead paragraph, since both the LDS Church and the Community of Christ removed the doctrine section of the D&C independently and at different times.

This article is for the D&C as published by both the LDS Church and Community of Christ (as well as other churches), which is perhaps the source of the confusion. It is not just about the LDS Church D&C. Snocrates 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 103 of 1835 Edition

[edit]

The article claims that two sections were removed from the LDS edition of the D&C after the 1835 edition: section 101 and 103. Though there were 103 sections in the 1835 edition, the final section was numbered 102. An error during preparation for publication resulted in two sections labeled 66. I can't find any reference to a section besides 101 that was removed in LDS editions subsequent to 1835.

Please re-write your edit without the LDS POV re: S.101. Remember that what is there currently was written by consensus of editors from varying backgrounds. Any changes need references. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the article is to discuss the LDS publication of the D&C. The LDS rationale for removing 101 is appropriate here. Section 101 was removed at the same time as section 132 was added because 132 superseded 101. Stating that 101 is controversial is not a neutral point of view; rather I attempt to show why it is controversial--because the church later adopted plural marriage. Also, you need to find a reference for the assertion that section 103 was removed. Only section 101 was removed. Stating otherwise is incorrect (unless you can find a reference). 66.182.78.73 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 160 (CofC)

[edit]

We're missing an external link to section 160 of the Community of Christ edition. All the other sections are linked to. Does anyone know why this is or where we can get a link to section 160? I can't find one on the CofC website. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that link is missing. I looked several months ago when I noticed the same thing, but had no success digging it up. Looked again today, same result. Perhaps it is no longer consider part of the COC canon. Sorry I can't be more help.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLDS & AUB?

[edit]

I think it might be valuable to included what version of the D&C that is used by the FLDS and AUB. I believe the contents of both of these sects D&C is slightly different than the SLC-based church. If anyone has a source of this information, perhaps it can be added. Surv1v4l1st (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's late to respond, but if anyone is wondering, Fundamentalists use Utah D&C + Lectures on Faith and sometimes have their own revelations. But to my knowledge they do not print their own editions of the D&C as that would be very expensive. Apologies if it looks like I am posting original research/using talk page as a forum, but I am posting this both to pledge to find reputable sources for this subject, and to possibly arouse interest in others to look for it as well.. Unfortunately it is difficult to get non-anecdotal information on the subject as very few people go into the details of Mormon Fundamentalist theology.. but I will try. 69.120.202.15 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

date sorting

[edit]

I want to re-sort the list of Doctrines and Covenants chronologically, but it seems to sort based of the alphabetical spelling of the date. Can this be fixed??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.156.99 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it myself. 99.162.156.99 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of D&C 132

[edit]

Goodol'Factory got in touch about the dating of the section on the replacement of Section 101 with the current Section 132, all of which I accept. Could we at least put a note in to explain that the newer section dates to before the revelation of Section 101? The current sentence is "(i)t was superseded by section 132 of the modern LDS edition, which contains a revelation received by Joseph Smith on eternal marriage and teaches the doctrine of plural marriage". The official Church explantion is "(a)lthough the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." Could the sentence therefore be ""(i)t was superseded by section 132 of the modern LDS edition, where revelations on eternal marriage and teachings the doctrine of plural marriage, the principles of which could date to as early as 1831". 82.39.62.227 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine in my opinion. I don't see the need to state how old the revelation is one way or the other, since it is a disputed fact, but the phrasing of "... could date to as early as ..." is fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this phrasing OK? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctrine and Covenants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctrine and Covenants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

digital exhibit on doctrine and covenants

[edit]

I'm not sure if this adds much to the research on this page but there is a digital exhibit from BYU on the history of the doctrine and covenants here. The page on revisions mentions how Talmage did most of the revisions regarding punctuation, capitalization, indexing, etc. in 1921. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctrine_and_Covenants&oldid=1206995546"